What is the correct call?

[bobbybanaduck]

intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the playing field

Impose such penalties so as to nullify the interference.

3.15

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the playing field

Impose such penalties so as to nullify the interference.

3.15

Bingo!!

"Obstruction" would not be the correct ruling. Just place runners in your judgment would nullify the interference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the playing field

Impose such penalties so as to nullify the interference.

3.15

The correct answer, and with a rules reference (that I didn't check, but I believe to be correct).

After so many years on these boards, I am not surprised by the continued discussion and incorrect answers after bobby's post, but I still wonder why it happens.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the playing field

Impose such penalties so as to nullify the interference.

3.15

Agree. Person authorized to be on the playing field is designated to intentionally interfere. That is reason for being there.

Likely a double, unless runner is particularly speedy and umpire thinks he may have legged out a triple absent the interference. I'm not sure I would go that far.