Obstruction/Interference on same play
 

This is a play that happened at a recent Jr College tournament.
I wasn't there, but one of the umpires involved was discussing the play with a group of us during a break in another recent tournament.
I'm curious what the correct ruling would be.

R1 on 1B. 1 out.
Catcher obstructs B2 during her swing. Ball ends up grounding towards F4.
R1 Interferes with F4 making the play.
BU kills the play.
What happens next?

R1 is out on the interference. BR gets first on the obstruction.

If this were ASA, I'd say Ed hit it on the head. The result of the play is, of course, what azbigdawg said - R1 is out on the INT, and B2 is award 1B. However, it all bounces back to the coach having the option since not all runners advanced at least one base.

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.

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.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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.

thanks for the great replies.

Its a good thing this doesn't happen very often because I don't think there is a way to enforce both.

If you enforce the Obstruction, then R1 gets away with interference.
If you enforce Interference, then the coach never gets his choice and thus the catcher gets away with Obstruction.

I would think that calling R1 out and giving BR 1B might be the easiest sell, but in either case, I'm thinking you're gonna have a heck of an argument.

Do you know what the ruling was on the field?

I'd think that calling R1 out and giving BR 1B would be the tougher of the two sells for the reason I outlined previously. If you've got a smart coach who knows the catcher obstruction rule, you'll have a hard time convincing them that they, in the end, DON'T have a choice.

Catcher's OBS is completely different from other instances of OBS - the offensive coach can have a choice in the matter. In all other instances of OBS, it's the umpires who decide where the runners go, not the coach.

F2 hindered the batter's ability to hit the ball where they wanted, and the play was affected from the get-go. R1 should be given 2B, and B2 given 1B.

This is where the Note 2 comes into play. "Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty has precedence." This takes the offensive coaches options away and gives the defense an advantage for the obstructing the batter. Maybe some wording change in this rule is in order.

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.

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.

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

Keep the out!!!
 

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.

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.

;)

Thanks Tom!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. :confused:

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

Are we striving for consensus? :eek:

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:

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

[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?"

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Per the ASA Rule Book
 

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.

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

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.

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?

I stand corrected.
 

Dan,

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

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.:eek:

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:confused:

Do we agree on this, for the most part.

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

No!
 

You'd still have R1 out on the interference.

That is my understanding.

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

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.

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

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

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 got my information...
 

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?

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?

But...
 

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.

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.

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."

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

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


Obstruction or Interference: Which take precedence?</SPAN>
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.

Should have stuck to my guns!