Obstruction/Interference on same play

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?