OBS then INT

[jicecone]

NFHS Def of Obstruction 2-22-1 gives two exceptions, 8-4-2c & 8-4-2d."Does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him" or c, "dives over a fielder". But it still doesn't state that these exceptions supersed OBS like 8-4-2e says "MC supersedes obstruction."

Do you agree that the award for OBS "trumps" the penalty for INT?

I don't believe I would be able to support that with a NFHS rule except in the case of MC.

As already pointed out and in "The Usual Suspects" 2004 by Carl Childress he points out this exact play. Then, he stated that you are to "Penalize first the obstruction then the interference", for both NCAA and NFHS. Until there is better guidelines I guess we go with prescedence.

I'm up for learning something new though.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

As already pointed out and in "The Usual Suspects" 2004 by Carl Childress he points out this exact play. Then, he stated that you are to "Penalize first the obstruction then the interference", for both NCAA and NFHS. Until there is better guidelines I guess we go with prescedence.

I'm up for learning something new though.

It's not an issue of precedence. I know we penalize the infractions in the order of occurrence. The problem is WHAT'S THE PENALTY FOR THE INT? Score the run and call out the BR or cancel the run and call out R2?

FED rules list several infractions that supersede OBS, including MC and diving over a fielder. They neither include nor exclude INT. What about INT?

[David B]

I don't think you can cancel the run because of the interference. I think you would go for the out, which would be the BR in this play.

If there were other runners, I would think you would call out the runner closest to home.

I'm thinking about the rule that you can call a double play when the runner interferes at second etc., ; however, in those plays you don't have the obstruction to deal with which in FED is an automatic base.

Thanks
David