2 violations on one play.

[lawump]

Dash and I discussed this for a few posts on another board.

Here is my take (what I posted on the other board):

What a third-world play!

First, this should be obvious, but there is no interference by the B/R on F9's throw home. For there to be interference on a thrown ball, the B/R would have had to intentionally interfere.

At that point, I, as the base umpire, would have been signaling "safe" and saying "that's nothing!"

Then, B/R runs into (I think) F3. Under OBR the ball remains live because we have obstruction without a play. I, as base umpire, would yell, "that's obstruction," and let the play continue.

Then, last but not least, B/R runs back to first base after being stopped by the obstruction. Then the ball gets by F2, and the first base coach physically pushes B/R toward second base. This is coach's interference pursuant to rule 7.09 (i). The penalty for this is that the runner is out, but the ball remains alive.

I would now call the B/R "out".

IMHO, just because a runner is obstructed, does not mean a coach can physically assist him. If he could, IMO, this would be in the rule book. And the rulebook does allow for exceptions to the rules due to obstruction.(For instance, it says in the rulebook that if a runner misses a base because of obstruction, he shall not be out on appeal for missing the base).

IMO, if the rules drafters wanted to allow coaches to be able to assist obstructed runners, they would have put in rule 7.09i, "a runner shall not be out as a result of a coach assisting him after he has been obstructed," or something like that.

Thus, I have B/R "out" at the end of this play.

In the end, Dash disagreed with my analysis and we agreed to disagree.