Obstruction/Interference on same play

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by umpharp

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

That is my understanding.

Would you do differently if the batted ball would have hit R1?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

You'd still have R1 out on the interference.

I disagree. It has already been pointed out that context of 8-5B deals with obstruction of a runner, yet you quoted it with the "any" bolded as if they are absolutes. You state nothing as to why this should apply to CO. Without a cogent argument for this, I don't find it compelling.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

Since the interference has changed the "result" of the play how can you allow the OC his "choice"?

Since the catcher's obstruction has changed the "result" of the play, how can you not allow the OC his "choice"?

[Mid-Mich. Blue]

Hey Harp,

See what you started. I had to go thru some of your posts, but I figured it was you after you asked me about this play last night. I still think you have
R1 out on INT and BR on 1st.

Mid-Mich. Blue

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by celebur

I disagree. It has already been pointed out that context of 8-5B deals with obstruction of a runner, yet you quoted it with the "any" bolded as if they are absolutes. You state nothing as to why this should apply to CO. Without a cogent argument for this, I don't find it compelling.

I'm not finding a compelling argument to ignore the note on 8-5B. The definition of obstruction refers to both forms of obstruction (on a batter and on a runner), as does the Rules Supplement (on a batter and a runner). The note does state ANY obstruction, and does not explictly nor implicitly provide an exception for catcher's obstruction.

If you are relying solely on the context (that the rule defining the result of catcher's obstruction is in a different place) and the fact that the note already stated is not repeated (that would be redundant), I would hardly consider that more compelling.

While I think it could be more clear, I find the note more indicative of the intent of the rule. I would have R1 out on interference, dead ball, and the coach may have the option on the remaining elements.

[DeputyUICHousto]

from an ASA National Staff Member.

The rule says that interference takes precadence over obstruction. It does not say it nullifies it completely.

I do think ASA needs to clean up this very play. It is quite ambiguous and confusing.

What happens if a runner from 3rd is involved in this play and is off with the pitch...crosses the plate prior to the interference?

[celebur]

I am open to changing my mind.

A point for further comment--I mentioned before that I'd favor keeping the out if the interference was of the "flagrant" kind. I don't have the rulebook handy, but the crash rule is simply part of the interference rule, correct? If so, then if you keep the out for a deliberate crash, you'd also have to for more "routine" interference. . . Just thinking out loud. Comments?

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by celebur

I am open to changing my mind.

A point for further comment--I mentioned before that I'd favor keeping the out if the interference was of the "flagrant" kind. I don't have the rulebook handy, but the crash rule is simply part of the interference rule, correct? If so, then if you keep the out for a deliberate crash, you'd also have to for more "routine" interference. . . Just thinking out loud. Comments?

Doesn't the interference also perhaps change the "outcome" of the play which the OC now is given the option for?

I say keep the out and give the coach the option on the batter/runner and any other runners.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm not finding a compelling argument to ignore the note on 8-5B. The definition of obstruction refers to both forms of obstruction (on a batter and on a runner), as does the Rules Supplement (on a batter and a runner). The note does state ANY obstruction, and does not explictly nor implicitly provide an exception for catcher's obstruction.

If you are relying solely on the context (that the rule defining the result of catcher's obstruction is in a different place) and the fact that the note already stated is not repeated (that would be redundant), I would hardly consider that more compelling.

While I think it could be more clear, I find the note more indicative of the intent of the rule. I would have R1 out on interference, dead ball, and the coach may have the option on the remaining elements.

I agree with Steve. ASA often stays with the actual wording of the rule when there is a question. The book specifically states any interference and any obstruction. Don't think it could be any clearer. If that isn't what they want, then they need to clean it up.

[Dakota]

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....

Since some of you are taking the omnipresent view of this statement, I guess then it would mean that enforcement of the following would take precedence over CO:

o spectator interference
o coach's interference
o umpire interference
o BR contacts the batted ball out of the box
o BR interferes with a D3K (with CO on the swing)
o BR steps back toward home plate to avoid being tagged (by the dribbler picked up by F3 after having her swing obstructed by the catcher).

So, spectator reaches in and interferes with the catch of a fly ball with CO. You're going to rule the BR out and void the obstruction?

To quote Seth and Amy, "Really."

[ronald]

ASA speak,

Bob Savoie made a ruling on a similar play in a 2002 nationals. Game was stopped and they called him. Happened in the MD area I believe as the DC metro umpires where involved in the play to my recollection. do not know if that ruling has been superseded. If I missed the intent, sorry.

Interference and br to 1st base.

Ron

[IRISHMAFIA]

Again, an ASA clarification to a question on this site:


Obstruction or Interference: Which take precedence?
Rule 8 Section 5 B Note 2 states that “should of an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty has precedence.” Rule Supplement # 36 clarifies that this only applies to the obstructed runner. If the obstructed runner commits an act of interference, then the obstructed runner would be out. If anyone else commits an act of interference, then we must apply the rule in effect for that play.

Play: R1 on 2B with less than 2 outs. B3 swings and is obstructed by the catcher. B3 makes contact and hits the ball to F6. While attempting to field the ball, R1 runs into F6 committing an act of interference. The umpire should call “dead ball” and rule R1 out for interference. What happens to B3?

Ruling: When catcher’s obstruction occurs, the plate umpire should signal “Delayed Dead Ball” and call obstruction. When the interference occurs the umpires should now call dead ball and the runner out for interference. The batter runner is awarded 1B. However, the umpires must now apply the remainder of the catcher’s obstruction rule. The umpire should now ask the offended team if they want to take the result of the play or not, which is R1 out and B3 awarded 1B OR put R1 on 2B and award B3 1B because Rule 8 Section 1 D 2 says; If all runners, including the batter runner do not advance at least one base. Effect: The manager has the option of taking the result of the play or enforcing obstruction by awarding the batter first base and advancing all runners, if forced.

[Ed Maeder]

Should have stuck to my guns!