Obstruction then Interference

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Armadillo_Blue

R1 off with the pitch is obstructed by F3. B1 hits a grounder to F4 which hits R1 on his way to second. Umpire judges that R1 would not have been in the path of the ball had he not been obstructed. Is R1 still out for the interference.

Is the ruling the same in FED and OBR?

FED 2009 interp seems to imply that both infractions are penalized. So, I'd have R1 at second (on the OBS) and BR out (on the INT, since R1 can't be out).

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 2009 interp seems to imply that both infractions are penalized. So, I'd have R1 at second (on the OBS) and BR out (on the INT, since R1 can't be out).

I like that call.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 2009 interp seems to imply that both infractions are penalized. So, I'd have R1 at second (on the OBS) and BR out (on the INT, since R1 can't be out).

What if the fielder tripped the runner and the runner fell into the path of the batted ball?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

What if the fielder tripped the runner and the runner fell into the path of the batted ball?

I'll take a shot:

Hmmm...obstruction. B/R gets 1B, other runners placed by umpire(s)...would have a tough time calling a runner out here.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 2009 interp seems to imply that both infractions are penalized. So, I'd have R1 at second (on the OBS) and BR out (on the INT, since R1 can't be out).

In situation 15 this is not the same since BR was not being played on. If we follow FEDs logic runner from 2b scores because he was obstructed going home, runner from 1b is called out due to interference by the obstructed runner who interferes with catcher's attempt to retire runner from 1b, and BR gets 1B since he was not involved at all in the play.