Obstruction/Interference on same play

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by celebur

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.

I'm not so sure we've come to a consensus on the ruling. Some are saying we should keep the out, others are saying award R1 2B and B2 1B.

Either way, the correct ruling has been stated, but we aren't all in agreement on which one it is!

[celebur]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I'm not so sure we've come to a consensus on the ruling. Some are saying we should keep the out, others are saying award R1 2B and B2 1B.

Either way, the correct ruling has been stated, but we aren't all in agreement on which one it is!

Are we striving for consensus?

OK, in my opinion, I find Dakota persuasive when he points out that "interference takes precendence" is limited by context to obstructed runners and does not apply to catcher's obstruction. Unless someone can come up with a better reason for keeping the out, I think UmpireErnie summarized the correct ruling succinctly:

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

. . .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. . .

Is there a compelling reason for keeping the out and negating the option?

[CecilOne]

[QUOTE=DeRef]If the interference was flagrant, would you still overlook it in order to give the OC the choice? QUOTE]
INT is INT, flagrant or gentle. If it occurs, the penalty is the same, an out.

As to the CO/OC option, I guess I'll have to check the book for a change before expressing an opinion.


BTW, in a topic that is confused already, this need some terminology cleanup"
"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.

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?"

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

BTW, in a topic that is confused already, this need some terminology cleanup"
"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.

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?"

Good point and sorry. I went ahead and edit my post.
________
HOW TO ROLL A BLUNT

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

Well, they would if they knew this rule the way it's being explained.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

So, if the batter hits the ball fair and is obstructed with R1 on 1st and tries for a double and is out, the out stands and the runner stays on 3rd.
If however, the batter does not hit the ball and it gets away from the catcher and he gets caught at second, the coach has the choice, runners on 1 and 2 or one out runner on 3.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

The catcher can't commit interference. The act which we call obstruction is interfering with the opportunity to hit. I've editted the post anyway.

But what's the rule support for sorting things out when all play has come to an end? If the catcher drops strike three, and everybody thinks it's strike two, at what point has all play come to an end. If he's supposed to run to first, all play can't come to an end until he either does or is put out. Not that I disagree with doing it this way, per se, I just can't imagine the batter going without getting a hit because of obstruction.
________
Live sex

[Dakota]

youngump, you're getting yourself all wrapped around the axle on this (or, perhaps twisting yourself in an axel....)

The obstruction effect is a base award. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the batter might or might not recognize as having happened. The obstructed batter is under no obligation to run or not run. As with obstruction on a runner, the runner does what the runner does after the obstruction. It is a delayed dead ball, and after the play is over, the umpire will make whatever awards are to be made, according to his judgment.

With CO, the assumption is the obstruction impeded (not interfered with - since interference has a defined meaning, using it as a generic word in these situations is confusing) the batter's attempt to strike at the ball. As a result of this, several things can happen, but basically two results:

1) The batter hit the ball fair and reached 1B and all other runners advance at least 1 base safely.

The CO is ignored. Play stands, including all outs recorded, runners advanced, or runs scored.

2) The batter either does not reach 1B safely or at least one other runner does not advance 1 base safely.

OC gets the choice of the obstruction effect (BR awarded 1B other runners advance if forced) or the result of the play. The batter is NOT obligated to recognize that she is now a BR for the effect of the CO to be enforced. She will be awarded 1B.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

youngump, you're getting yourself all wrapped around the axle on this (or, perhaps twisting yourself in an axel....)

The obstruction effect is a base award. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the batter might or might not recognize as having happened. The obstructed batter is under no obligation to run or not run. As with obstruction on a runner, the runner does what the runner does after the obstruction. It is a delayed dead ball, and after the play is over, the umpire will make whatever awards are to be made, according to his judgment.

With CO, the assumption is the obstruction impeded (not interfered with - since interference has a defined meaning, using it as a generic word in these situations is confusing) the batter's attempt to strike at the ball. As a result of this, several things can happen, but basically two results:

1) The batter hit the ball fair and reached 1B and all other runners advance at least 1 base safely.

The CO is ignored. Play stands, including all outs recorded, runners advanced, or runs scored.

2) The batter either does not reach 1B safely or at least one other runner does not advance 1 base safely.

OC gets the choice of the obstruction effect (BR awarded 1B other runners advance if forced) or the result of the play. The batter is NOT obligated to recognize that she is now a BR for the effect of the CO to be enforced. She will be awarded 1B.

So, I agree with you in principle, but if I read the rule as making them a batter runner, I'm not sure how I can back it up from the book. That is I'd have done just what you said, and called it dead as soon as the runners (not BR) had stopped and they'd have liability to be put out and if they were, we'd let the coach decide whether to take their out and everything else that happened or not. But everything else, would not have included the batter taking first after obstruction of ball one.

If I call a delayed dead ball after the batter runner did not get a hit, the runner on first or second can try and come all the way home with no possible penalty. And in fact, it's not actually dead until all action stops since CO doesn't contain the dead ball and where would they have gotten penalty that Obstruction carries. I guess it is dead after 3 outs.
________
EROTIKA

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

So, I agree with you in principle, but if I read the rule as making them a batter runner, I'm not sure how I can back it up from the book. ...

I'm having trouble understanding your issue with this. By rule, the batter becomes a BR, with the effect of an award of 1B. And you can't back this up from the rule book?

Here are a couple of case plays that, while not exactly the same situation, are close enough that I hope you can understand the rule (and the ruling).

These are from the 2007 ASA Case Book.

PLAY 8.1-21
In the bottom of the seventh inning with a tied score and one out, R1 is at 3B,and B3 comes to bat. B3 is obstructed by F2 while swinging and missing a pitched ball. B3 is awarded 1B on the catcher’s obstruction and R1 remains at 3B. May B3 take the result of the play instead of the award?
RULING: Yes, a swinging strike is a play, just as much as a fly ball or a base hit. The manager of the offensive team should have the option of B3 being awarded 1B, or taking the result of the play by B3 remaining at the plate with a strike added to the count. (8-1D[2])

PLAY 8.1-22
The home team is behind 2-1 in the bottom of the seventh inning with one out, R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B. An illegal pitch is thrown to B4 and called by the umpire. However, B4 swings at the pitch and misses because F2 obstructs B4.
RULING: In (FP) B4 can swing at an illegal pitch, however, it does not remove the obstruction call. When the obstruction occurred, the offensive manager is given the choice of the result of play or the obstruction penalty because the batter and all runners did not advance one base. The result of the play would be awarding both runners one base and a ball on the batter for the illegal pitch call, or taking the obstruction penalty would result in the bases being loaded and no run scoring. In (SP) when the batter swings at the illegal pitch, this removes the call, therefore either the obstruction penalty would be enforced resulting in B4 being awarded 1B or taking the result of the play by remaining at the plate with an additional strike. (8-1D[2])

[DeputyUICHousto]

I believe Rule 8, Sect. 5 B Note:

Should any act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty takes precedence.

In my opinion, I would have the runner out on the interference and the BR would be placed at first base.

Let me spin this play in this manner:

R1 on 1st base. One out. Batter swings at pitch and is obstructed by catcher. Ball is popped up to 2nd baseman. R1 runs into 2nd baseman attempting to catch the fly ball. Since the interference has changed the "result" of the play how can you allow the OC his "choice"? I would have a dead ball on the interference, R1 out and BR out on the assumed caught fly ball. The rule book also stipulates that if the interference prevents a fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter/runner is also out.

As for the OP, I would have interference with R1 being called out and the BR being placed at 1st base. Catcher obstruction goes away.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I'm having trouble understanding your issue with this. By rule, the batter becomes a BR, with the effect of an award of 1B. And you can't back this up from the rule book?

So I have no problem with that. But that's not the way the rule reads, nor the way I read the post I was taking umbrage with. 8.1.d, state that they become a batter runner when obstructed.

For example, 0-0 count, R1 on 1st stealing 2nd. Catcher impedes the batter than throws into center field. R1 goes to third. At the end of the play, I call obstruction and the OC can choose, R1 at third or R1 at 2nd BR at 1st.

But if you read the rule literally, he became a batter runner when I called the delayed dead ball, not when I made the award. So when the ball flew into CF, the BR could run to 1st. The outcome of this play that has me thinking we should not read this rule literally is R1 at 3rd, R2 at 1st. I don't like that and would rather not call it that way.
________
Vaporizer price

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

I believe Rule 8, Sect. 5 B Note:

Should any act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty takes precedence.

I didn't followed this thread as it evolved, so I apologize for harping in late. The discussion has been very thought provoking.

One item that I seem to be reading differently than many is that I believe "precedence" means to have a higher priority, where "override" would mean to annul the first action. The rule book does not say INT overrides OBS, only takes precedence.

Since INT takes precedence over OBS, then I believe I agree with those that state: rule on the play with the INT and then give the offense the option of what to do on the catcher's OBS. The INT and OBS are not mutually exclusive.

Same in a situation where, for example, R1 might be OBS and R2 then INT. I would rule R2 out but still award R1 the proper base.

Obviously where R1 is OBS and then subsequently INT, R1 could not be called out and then awarded a base, so the INT takes precedence.

That's just my understanding of it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

But if you read the rule literally, he became a batter runner when I called the delayed dead ball, not when I made the award. So when the ball flew into CF, the BR could run to 1st. The outcome of this play that has me thinking we should not read this rule literally is R1 at 3rd, R2 at 1st. I don't like that and would rather not call it that way.

Okay, now I see where your pointing.

You are correct, according to the rule the batter becomes a BR upon the CO. So, no problem, you think. Just tag the BR out to end the play. But wait!!!

According to 8.2, the only way to retire a BR is if s/he hit a fair ball or it was a D3K, right? NO! According to 8.2.D, the BR who was the victim of CO can be ruled out if they leave the field of play and enter DBT!

Damn, are we having fun yet!?!?

If I remember correctly, I attempted to have this wording changed to alleviate a mess which no one could ever envision, but I didn't get this deep into the possibilities.

Okay, show of hands. Scenario: The batter attempted to hit the ball and missed but was OBS by the catcher. S/he advances to 1B safely, but R1 (from 1B) was thrown out attempting to take 3B on the play.

How many on this board would drop the CO and rule R1 out at 3B? For that matter, who would just stand there saying, "where the hell is s/he going?" referring to the recently ordained BR?

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I didn't followed this thread as it evolved, so I apologize for harping in late. The discussion has been very thought provoking.

One item that I seem to be reading differently than many is that I believe "precedence" means to have a higher priority, where "override" would mean to annul the first action. The rule book does not say INT overrides OBS, only takes precedence.

Since INT takes precedence over OBS, then I believe I agree with those that state: rule on the play with the INT and then give the offense the option of what to do on the catcher's OBS. The INT and OBS are not mutually exclusive.

Same in a situation where, for example, R1 might be OBS and R2 then INT. I would rule R2 out but still award R1 the proper base.

Obviously where R1 is OBS and then subsequently INT, R1 could not be called out and then awarded a base, so the INT takes precedence.

That's just my understanding of it.

Dan,

I'm with you on this one. R1 out on interference. Then enforce CO rule.

[umpharp]

So to break down the process.....

The play is killed after the interference. We call R1 out for Interference.
So far, so Good, everybody is happy

Then PU comes out and says, I have CO.

So we get together and enforce CO, which would give the coach the choice of taking the result of the play or putting BR on 1B and moving everybody that was forced to move up one base, which would put R1 on 2B

Do we agree on this, for the most part.

and either way, we got some explaining to do to a coach

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by umpharp

So to break down the process.....

The play is killed after the interference. We call R1 out for Interference.
So far, so Good, everybody is happy

Then PU comes out and says, I have CO.

So we get together and enforce CO, which would give the coach the choice of taking the result of the play or putting BR on 1B and moving everybody that was forced to move up one base, which would put R1 on 2B

Do we agree on this, for the most part.

and either way, we got some explaining to do to a coach

You'd still have R1 out on the interference.