Obstruction/Interference on same play

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

I deleted my post because I am now wondering if I was Correct. Granted this was NCAA rule set, but ASA rules state that " Should an act of interference occur following ANY obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty has precedence." This seems to be a case where the defense would gain an advantage by the catchers obstruction. What do others have to say?

"Note 2" states "any interference". Paragraph 1 (immediately following that note specifically mentions the obstructed runner committing the INT as does the RS.

However, let's address the INT committed by another runner. That runner would have been ruled out and the BR awarded 1B unless the umpire believes the INT was committed to prevent a double play. Since there is no indication this was the case, I would think the result of either violation would have resulted in the same set-up for the following play. The difference would be if there were other active runners.

[Ed Maeder]

That's why I deleted my original post. I felt that the option of the offensive coach for the catchers obstruction was voided by the interference, since the Note 2 says the interference takes precedence. Thanks!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

That's why I deleted my original post. I felt that the option of the offensive coach for the catchers obstruction was voided by the interference, since the Note 2 says the interference takes precedence. Thanks!

1) Is there a difference between "interference takes precedence" and "obstruction is voided"? IOW, does the INT eliminate the OBS ruling and penalty altogether?
2) Let's say the F4 was interfered with, but still throws out the BR at 1st. If the OBS is completely voided, that's 2 outs and no option.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

1) Is there a difference between "interference takes precedence" and "obstruction is voided"? IOW, does the INT eliminate the OBS ruling and penalty altogether?
2) Let's say the F4 was interfered with, but still throws out the BR at 1st. If the OBS is completely voided, that's 2 outs and no option.

No, not 2 outs. The ball is dead on the interference, so the second out didn't happen.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No, not 2 outs. The ball is dead on the interference, so the second out didn't happen.

Yeah, wasn't thinking this early. The only further out is if "the umpire believes the INT was committed to prevent a double play" as Mike said, then BR out would occur as a penalty for the INT, even with the dead ball.

However, back to my Q1. Does the INT by a non-obstructed runner eliminate the OBS ruling and penalty altogether, and with it "the coach having the option"? No other runners would have been forced, given the INT, but let's say a runner on 2nd or 3rd was running on the pitch and advanced a base before the INT.
Or, am I still asleep?

[Dakota]

Caveat: the OP was under (presumably) NCAA rules. So, speaking ASA

I submit that the note under ASA Rule 8-5-B does not apply due to context. Rule 8-5-B is not applicable to the OP situation. 8-5-B is concerning obstructing the progress of a runner or BR who is legally running the bases. The OP was the catcher obstructing the batter attempting to hit the ball.

The applicable rule is 8-1-D, which carries no exception for subsequent interference by the BR or anyone else. This makes sense to me since the presumption is the CO may have impacted the flight of the ball and hence subsequent play.

Therefore, I would rule the OC has two choices: result of the play (R1 out, BR on 1B), or the enforcement of the penalty (BR on 1B, other runner advanced in forced). I can guess which one he would take.

[NCASAUmp]

Catcher's OBS is a unique situation in which the entire play has, potentially, been affected. As Ed correctly pointed out in his deleted post (that I quoted), B2's ability to hit the ball has been affected. As a result, the ball could have gone many other places than where it did in the OP.

In my interpretation, 8-5-B does not apply.