Interference and Obstruction during same play

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Here's my belief about this play.

We say interference supercedes obstruction. BUT, I think we have to consider if it was the same runner; if so, THEN the obstructed runner that commits interference is out, and no longer protected.

In replaying this situation, we had an intended ruling of the lead runner being awarded home; because we believe she would have made home. It doesn't matter that she went back after being knocked down; what matters is our judgment that she would have reached home if not obstructed.

So, does the subsequent interference kill the obstruction award? I submit that you have to reconsider the timing that would have occurred absent the obstruction, if you are going to award based on "absent the obstruction". If you judge that, not only the lead runner would have scored, but would have scored BEFORE the interference, then the only fair award that negates the obstruction is to award home BEFORE the interference. And, given average runners, a runner from 2nd WOULD score before a BR would be tagged out at 2nd stretching to a double.

And, to me, that is the only fair ruling. Fix the affect of the obstruction, UNLESS the obstructed runner commits an act that supercedes THAT obstruction. But, if the obstruction caused someone to not score that should have, score the run.

I like your rule but I'm having trouble squaring it with how we call things. Doesn't this directly conflict with the direction that you have to make a decision at the time of the obstruction? Sure something might happen afterwords that changes what would have happened absent the obstruction but we generally ignore that.
If I have a runner protected home and then there's interference it's not clear whether from the rules the penalty is that the runner is out and the ball dead so as a result runners are returned to their last bases -- hence you'd still make the award. Or if the penalty is that the runner is out and all runners return to last legally touched base -- hence the award is canceled.

But in either case, I think you have to make the decision without respect to when the interference occurs relative to when you think the runner would have achieved the awarded base. R1 on second stealing, ball hit sharply to right. F5 trips the runner. On the play at 1B the runner takes out the first baseman who has the ball. In your belief the runner would have made it home easily absent being tripped but presently she hasn't even made third. But also in your belief she would not have gotten home before the interference. I can see how one justifies an award of home or second on this play, but I really can't see how you can give third by rule.
________
Depakote lawsuit

[UmpireErnie]

Drwill, my point in this thread is whether or not INT by another runner negates BY RULE the obstruction award we were going to give at the end of the play not so much about how much effort a runner needed to show to demonstrate they would have made the next base. If my OP was less than clear I apologize. I meant to paint a picture of R1 rounding 3B at full speed, obviously going home, so obviously that in your mind as PU you would place her at home as a result of the OBS except for this pesky INT at 2B committed by another runner...

I agree that the rulings Steve and Cecil give FEEL right; I am just trying to square them with the written rules. As Cecil’s tag line reads it’s not up to us to invent rulings to fit what we THINK is correct.

If it’s the same runner being obstructed then later committing interference, it’s easy. The rules are clear that INT committed by an obstructed runner basically trumps the OBS call. However it seems to me that in this instance, on one page the book says R1 goes back to 3B while on another page the book says R1 is awarded home.