Obstruction/Interference on same play

[Dakota]

Or a clarification. I submit (as I said above) that the rule containing the note does not apply, hence the note within the rule does not apply.

[umpharp]

On the field, they enforced the Interference.
They called R1 out and gave BR 1B.

From what I understand, there was a lot of discussion and the umpires, who both also do a lot of ASA, reverted to the Interference takes precedence over Obstruction.

I don't think any of the umpires involved thought of Dakota's point that the rule involved regular Obstruction and not Catcher Obstruction although that was brought up by another umpire in our discussion over the weekend.

[Ed Maeder]

Thanks Tom! I would agree with you that 8-1-D is the proper ruling and the note could be clarified.

[DeRef]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

Thanks Tom! I would agree with you that 8-1-D is the proper ruling and the note could be clarified.

While I agree that 8-5-B does not apply, it seems to me that everyone is overlooking 8-7-J-1. I don't think that you can overlook the interference to give the coach the choice. If the interference was flagrant, would you still overlook it in order to give the OC the choice? I say you keep the out and give the coach the choice of the result of the play or awarding the BR 1B due to the obstruction (either choice results in the same result). Either way, I am keeping the out on R1.

[UmpireErnie]

I think we have to seperate "obstruction" and "catcher's obstruction" in our minds on this issue. It would probably be better if we called them "obstructed runner" and "obstructed batter". The only thing they have in common is that they are both sins committed by the defense.

The "Note 2" that Ed talks about (I can't believe you did not stick to your guns on this one Eddie!) is a Note under ASA 8-5-B which is only talking about an obstructed runner or batter-runner. In the case of "catcher's obstruction" the offended party is NOT a runner nor a batter-runner, just a hopeful batter. ASA 8-1 D applies. The batter becomes a batter runner when the catcher obstructs her swing but at the time she was obstructed she was a batter not a batter-runner.

8-7-J-1 (the rule on interference) does apply, it is simply wiped out (just like any other out on the play could be wiped out) by the offended team taking the option that is to be given following catcher's obstruction.

So, delayed dead ball on the catcher's obstrution, followed by immedate dead ball on R1s INT. Call R1 out, put B2 on 1B, then go to offense coach and give option, and unless the coach is really wasted he goes with the catcher's obstruction penalty which now negates the out of R1 and returns her to 2B. B1 is still awarded 1B.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

...The only thing they have in common is that they are both sins committed by the ofdefense.....

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Thanks Tom!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

The batter becomes a batter runner when the catcher obstructs her swing but at the time she was obstructed she was a batter not a batter-runner.

I don't believe that's correct, the batter still has to hit the ball to become a batter runner (or cause strike three to hit the ground).
--Ben
________
Glass pipe

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

I don't believe that's correct, the batter still has to hit the ball to become a batter runner (or cause strike three to hit the ground).
--Ben

No, it's actually written in the same section as catcher OBS (8-1-D).

[youngump]

I guess that's how it reads ... but I must confess it seems a little outlandish for an obstructed batter-runner to take off without hitting the ball.

Further, if you follow the rule as written literally (at least in the NFHS book), if the catcher's obstruction prevents a hit, the coach will retain the option regardless of how far everyone advances.

Is this really how you all call this?

If the catcher commits obstruction and catches the ball do you treat it like fielder's obstruction and wait for the batter to be put out before enforcing the penalty?
________
Colorado medical marijuana dispensaries

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I guess that's how it reads ... but I must confess it seems a little outlandish for an obstructed runner to take off without hitting the ball.

They wouldn't unless it was ball four or a D3K.

Further, if you follow the rule as written literally (at least in the NFHS book), if the catcher's obstruction prevents a hit, the coach will retain the option regardless of how far everyone advances.

In any rules set. Don't see your point.

Is this really how you all call this?

If the catcher interferes and catches the ball do you treat it like obstruction and wait for the batter to be put out before enforcing the penalty?

To start, the catcher cannot interfere. And no, you enforce the OBS when the OBS batter/batter-runner is retired or it is obvious all play has come to an end.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

They wouldn't unless it was ball four or a D3K.



In any rules set. Don't see your point.



To start, the catcher cannot interfere. And no, you enforce the OBS when the OBS batter/batter-runner is retired or it is obvious all play has come to an end.

Well, in this sitch, you have an INT call on R1, which kills the play dead. At that point, you'd have to make your award.

[canump]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

I think we have to seperate "obstruction" and "catcher's obstruction" in our minds on this issue. It would probably be better if we called them "obstructed runner" and "obstructed batter". The only thing they have in common is that they are both sins committed by the defense.

The "Note 2" that Ed talks about (I can't believe you did not stick to your guns on this one Eddie!) is a Note under ASA 8-5-B which is only talking about an obstructed runner or batter-runner. In the case of "catcher's obstruction" the offended party is NOT a runner nor a batter-runner, just a hopeful batter. ASA 8-1 D applies. The batter becomes a batter runner when the catcher obstructs her swing but at the time she was obstructed she was a batter not a batter-runner.

8-7-J-1 (the rule on interference) does apply, it is simply wiped out (just like any other out on the play could be wiped out) by the offended team taking the option that is to be given following catcher's obstruction.

So, delayed dead ball on the catcher's obstrution, followed by immedate dead ball on R1s INT. Call R1 out, put B2 on 1B, then go to offense coach and give option, and unless the coach is really wasted he goes with the catcher's obstruction penalty which now negates the out of R1 and returns her to 2B. B1 is still awarded 1B.

AS DEREF says" would you take back the out if the int. was flagrant"

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by canump

AS DEREF says" would you take back the out if the int. was flagrant"

If R1 behaved in an unsportsmanlike manner that warranted an ejection, I'd kill the play for the INT, make my award, then pull the offensive coach aside and ask who s/he's going to substitute for R1.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by canump

AS DEREF says" would you take back the out if the int. was flagrant"

Only if by "flagrant" you mean that the runner deliberately and with great force crashed into the fielder. And then you'd be ejecting that runner as well.

As for the OP, the correct ruling has already been stated.