OBS then INT

[mbyron]

A case for your consideration:

PLAY: With a runner on second, the batter hits a line drive to the left center field wall. The runner from second is obstructed by the third baseman after he has rounded third and headed to home. The plate umpire announces “That’s Obstruction,” and the play continues. The catcher, who now has the ball heard the obstruction call and cocks his arm back to attempt to throw to second for a play on the advancing batter-runner. As the obstructed runner passes the catcher, he knocks the ball from the catcher’s hand. The plate umpire now announces “That’s interference,” and makes the ball immediately dead. RULING: We will enforce the two violations in the order in which they occur. The runner from second is awarded home due to the obstruction by the third baseman. Since we just scored him, we cannot call him out for his interference. As the plate umpire judges that there was a possible play at second base on the batter-runner, the batter-runner is called out for the interference.

Assume that R2 interferes before touching HP. Thoughts?

[Welpe]

For Fed, the closest citation I am able to find is 8.3.2 Situation H which has a runner rounding third being obstructed and then the BR interfering with the play at first. The ruling's first sentence is this "The umpire shall deal with obstruction and then interference, since this is the order in which the infractions occurred."

Since the rules do not specify that interference supersedes obstruction, I'd enforce this play as if R2's interference was that of a runner that had already scored.

For OBR, I'd have to check J/R which is at home.

[jicecone]

Thats they way I have always undrstood it. Enforce in the order of the infractions unless the rules state otherwise.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Thats they way I have always undrstood it. Enforce in the order of the infractions unless the rules state otherwise.

Sure, enforce in order. But the question is: do you agree that the award for OBS "trumps" the penalty for INT?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sure, enforce in order. But the question is: do you agree that the award for OBS "trumps" the penalty for INT?

On the field, I'd enforce as Welpe posted: score the run, B/R out. That's easy to defend.

But somewhere in the deep recesses of little o'l pea-brain, I seem to remember a phrase that goes something like "... without liability to be put out, unless he subsequently commits interference..."

Maybe I'm just mis-remembering.

[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

[SAump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

A case for your consideration:



Assume that R2 interferes before touching HP. Thoughts?

Runner should be held liable for interference. Any award was contingent upon the runner proceeding safely to that base. R2 is out for interference. Slow BR returns to 1B.

Now my other opinion is to enforce 7.06a. Dead ball, run scores, place BR at 1B or 2B. Obstruction took place during live ball and interference took place during dead ball.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by SAump

Any award was contingent upon the runner proceeding safely to that base. R2 is out for interference. Slow BR returns to 1B.

You could say that this is your thought on this however, how about some reference to support this? I am not seeing it. Enlighten us.

The rules list exceptions for OBS being superseeded but this case is not one of them. The INT penalty is enforced by calling out the runner that the catcher (in the judgement of the umpire), would have played on. Unless I have missed something.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by Welpe

For Fed, the closest citation I am able to find is 8.3.2 Situation H which has a runner rounding third being obstructed and then the BR interfering with the play at first. The ruling's first sentence is this "The umpire shall deal with obstruction and then interference, since this is the order in which the infractions occurred."

Since the rules do not specify that interference supersedes obstruction, I'd enforce this play as if R2's interference was that of a runner that had already scored.

For OBR, I'd have to check J/R which is at home.

For Fed, I'll go along with what Welpe has posted.

For OBR, I had something somewhat similar happen to me in a "controlled game" play at the Umpire School, and I was told that the INT trumped the OBS. I'm not sure if my situation applies in this OP situation.

R1 and a base hit to right field: R1 was obstructed by F3, so I signaled OBS. R1 headed without hesitation to 3rd and as the ball was coming in, R1 stuck his hand out to deliberately deflect it. (The throw would have put him out at 3rd, but since this was going to be somewhat of a close play at 3rd, I was going to award it to him because of the OBS back at 1st). However, I was eventually told that his INT with the throw negated the OBS, so R1 would be declared out for INT. The explanation was that the obstructed runner still has the responsibility of running the bases legally.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sure, enforce in order. But the question is: do you agree that the award for OBS "trumps" the penalty for INT?

yes

You may think by scoring the run doesn't penalize for the INT, but where would the penalty be for the OBS?

In the op, R2 scores during a live ball after an OBS call, not an award of home
due to the OBS. Score the run, BR/R1 is out.

As for your follow up question if R2 interferes before touching HP it would have most likely been a play on him therefore the ball would have become dead. So, R2 is out and we have R1.

[SAump]

1) The runner committing interference is usually out, ball is immediately dead.
2) Interference rule suggests when the umpire cannot rule upon a play, here no throw to 2B - no play at 2B, the player closest to home can be ruled out.
3) By merely attempting to dislodge the ball at HP, we have an incidental malicious type of contact which may supersede obstruction.

I prefer ruling 7.06a obstuction only because the following interference ruling stinks, but it is what it is, as someone here would say.

[pmac]

I have a couple of thoughts that come from the OP. OBS was called on F5 - classical OBR 7.06(b), then R2, catcher and ball are all at HP. If R2 scores, then INT, run scores and BR is out (closest to HP as per SAump). My thought here is if R2 does not achieve HP before INT, max penalty applies - R2 out on INT, BR to 1b (thought process here is that defensive screwup does not relieve offense from the requirements to run properly).

Some rule sets (specifically Baseball Canada) state that time shall be called when a play is made on an obstructed runner (type b) and no further action can continue. Under that rule set, it would seem that R2, Catcher and Ball = play, so 'Tiime' and no INT. BR remains at 1b (otherwise why would catcher attempt throw to 2b?), and R2 scores if the umpire judgement is that he would have achieved HP in absence of OBS.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cookie

The explanation was that the obstructed runner still has the responsibility of running the bases legally.

That's exactly my reasoning. R2, who was obstructed at 3B, must still touch HP, for example, and would be out on appeal for the missed base. Is anyone going to argue that "he was awarded home on the OBS, and so we'll call BR out for the missed base"? That would be ridiculous.

R2 cannot dive over F2 as he approaches the plate. A FED case play calls the obstructed runner out for this illegal act. (Don't have my book here) Anyone want to call the BR out for that one?

The OHSAA official position is to call the BR out for R2's INT, even though the INT happened before R2 scored. Still makes no sense to me.