Obstruction/Interference on same play

[umpharp]

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?

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by umpharp

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.

[umpharp]

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.

[Dakota]

Do you know what the ruling was on the field?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by umpharp

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.

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.

[Ed Maeder]

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[umpharp]

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.

[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!

[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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

Offensive coach gets his option. Take result of the play (obviously not), or the award for catchers obstruction. Batter awarded first base and advancing all runners if forced. I would not reward the defense because the catchers obstruction may have prevented the batter from hitting the ball some where other then to F4.

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.

[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?

[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!