Interference then Collision-Did they get it right

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

There are four possible outcomes to this play.

1. Train wreck: everyone is doing what he should be, throw pulls catcher into runner's path as he tries to avoid contact. Ruling: play the bounce.

Under Fed rules, I was under the impression that this type of play should be ruled obstruction. Am I mistaken?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Under Fed rules, I was under the impression that this type of play should be ruled obstruction. Am I mistaken?

It could be OBS and could be a train wreck. IT's more likely to be OBS under FED than under other codes, though.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Under Fed rules, I was under the impression that this type of play should be ruled obstruction. Am I mistaken?

You might be thinking of 8.3.2 SITUATION K, which rules OBS on a wide throw at 1B.

But I think that the implication of the ruling of the following play is that F2 may be in the baseline if the throw draws him there. I've highlighted the relevant passage.

8.3.2 SITUATION I: R1 is attempting to score from third and F8 throws the ball
to F2. F2 is four or five feet down the line between home and third, but is not actually
able to catch the ball in order to make the tag. R1, rather than running into F2,
slides behind F2 into foul territory and then touches home plate with his hand.
After R1 slides, F2 catches the ball and attempts to tag R1 but misses. The coach
of the offensive team coaching at third base claims that obstruction should have
been called even though there was no contact. RULING: Obstruction. Contact does
not have to occur for obstruction to be ruled. F2 cannot be in the baseline without
the ball if it is not in motion and a probable play is not going to occur, nor can he
be in the baseline without giving the runner access to home plate.

As I read this play (a lot of negatives in that one clause!), it conflicts with 8.3.2 SITUATION K: if F2 is never permitted in the baseline without the ball (as seems to be the principle of Sit. K), then what is the point of this clause? The only interpretation that makes sense is that we're not to rule OBS when the throw takes F2 up the line.

I'm not sure what to make of this apparent conflict.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not sure what to make of this apparent conflict.

My take is that if the action "denies access to the base" then it's OBS, if it doesn't, then it isn't.

No, I don't like the rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My take is that if the action "denies access to the base" then it's OBS, if it doesn't, then it isn't.

No, I don't like the rule.

I agree that's how to make sense of Sit. K.

What's goofy is that the point of Sit. I seems to be that you can have OBS without contact. So non-contact denies access to the base? That ruling seems to me to go back to the language of "hindering" the runner, rather than denying access.

I agree that we should have a lower bar for OBS in FED-ball than non-FED. I'm just not sure on what basis to determine when contact constitutes OBS, consistent with these 2 case plays.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So non-contact denies access to the base?

It might and it might not. It depends on the contact and what happens to the runner.

[MD Longhorn]

In any case, it's the catcher that's fielding the thrown ball, and the obstruction was on the pitcher. F1 wasn't allowed to be there at all (unless HE was the one fielding the throw, of course). I have an EASY OBS on this play. The MC is HTBT but I have trouble coming up with a way to keep the run AND eject the runner. I think they missed in one direction or the other here.

[Adam]

I'm probably thinking about this wrong, but isn't the run "awarded" so that anything that happens after would be punished after the awarding of the run? I'm probably thinking about this too much like a basketball official, though, so feel free to dismiss my question if that's the case.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My take is that if the action "denies access to the base" then it's OBS, if it doesn't, then it isn't.

No, I don't like the rule.

What don't you like about it? A pitcher has no business in the baseline 2' in front of catcher who is 4' from base nad neither has the ball. There is an OBS rule in OBR.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

What don't you like about it? A pitcher has no business in the baseline 2' in front of catcher who is 4' from base nad neither has the ball. There is an OBS rule in OBR.

I was responding to the slight variation where the throw pulled F2 into the runners path and they collided (non-maliciously). That would (generally) be a train wreck in OBR, and would often (but not always) be OBS in FED.

I agree that as described in the OP, F1 was guilty of OBS, and that would be the same in all codes, and that I "like" this portion of the rule.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I was responding to the slight variation where the throw pulled F2 into the runners path and they collided (non-maliciously). That would (generally) be a train wreck in OBR, and would often (but not always) be OBS in FED.

I agree that as described in the OP, F1 was guilty of OBS, and that would be the same in all codes, and that I "like" this portion of the rule.

Understood. And I agree now that I know what you dislike.