Interference then Collision-Did they get it right

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Regarding the play in the OP. I believe that the contact between R1 and F2 is a HTBT situation.

BUT, lets (make an) a$$ (of) u (and) me that R1 was running full bore toward HP when F1's illegal contact knocks him off stride. Even if R1 is no more that two strides away from HP when the illegal contact by F1 occurs, it could be enough to cause R1 not to recover from the illegal contact in time to control his movement toward HP and thereby avoid a violent collision with F2 that is not MC.

Just my two cents worth.

MTD, Sr.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Regarding the play in the OP. I believe that the contact between R1 and F2 is a HTBT situation.

BUT, lets (make an) a$$ (of) u (and) me that R1 was running full bore toward HP when F1's illegal contact knocks him off stride. Even if R1 is no more that two strides away from HP when the illegal contact by F1 occurs, it could be enough to cause R1 not to recover from the illegal contact in time to control his movement toward HP and thereby avoid a violent collision with F2 that is not MC.

Just my two cents worth.

MTD, Sr.

If the second collision is a result of the runner not having control of himself as a result of the first, then there cannot be MC.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Not exactly. The base is awarded, but the runner is still required to run the bases legally (esp. in this context, no MC).

And the ball is live, so subsequent action counts.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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 suspect that is exactly what the crew in the OP were thinking--they had MC but thought the run scored anyway because of the OBS award. If so, then as others have already demonstrated, the MC should have superceded the OBS, and the run shouldn't have scored.