Interference and Obstruction during same play

[UmpireErnie]

This play (or something like it) came up in another thread and was never really answered or discussed so I bestow upon it, it’s very own thread!

PLAY: No outs. R1 at 2B, B2 hits safely thru the infield. Rounding 3B, R1 is obstructed by F5 and falls to the ground. She gets up and retreats to 3B. In your judgment she would have easily scored.

Meanwhile the ball is thrown to F4 in an attempt to put out B2 who is trying to stretch the hit into a double. The throw is in time but dropped by F4. B2 in a desperate bid to avoid being tagged out kicks the ball away from F4.

I am pretty sure at the point B2 kicks the ball we all have “Dead Ball”. Now what?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

This play (or something like it) came up in another thread and was never really answered or discussed so I bestow upon it, it’s very own thread!

PLAY: No outs. R1 at 2B, B2 hits safely thru the infield. Rounding 3B, R1 is obstructed by F5 and falls to the ground. She gets up and retreats to 3B. In your judgment she would have easily scored.

Meanwhile the ball is thrown to F4 in an attempt to put out B2 who is trying to stretch the hit into a double. The throw is in time but dropped by F4. B2 in a desperate bid to avoid being tagged out kicks the ball away from F4.

I am pretty sure at the point B2 kicks the ball we all have “Dead Ball”. Now what?

B2 is out, dead ball as said. R1 was already awarded home in your mind, awards are always during dead ball times, so no problem.

[Tex]

Agree with Cecileone, even if B2's interference was the 3rd out.

[derwil]

I'm going to have a very hard time awarding home in this scenario, just because an attempt at home was not made. If she retreats back to 3rd, well I just don't think she's gonna get home. Show me a reason to give you home. Walk, crawl.....swim to home....something that shows me you wanted to go there. Otherwise I'm gonna assume you're a knucklehead and don't know how to play the game.

Maybe just me..........

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by derwil

I'm going to have a very hard time awarding home in this scenario, just because an attempt at home was not made. If she retreats back to 3rd, well I just don't think she's gonna get home. Show me a reason to give you home. Walk, crawl.....swim to home....something that shows me you wanted to go there. Otherwise I'm gonna assume you're a knucklehead and don't know how to play the game.

Maybe just me..........

How about the fact that the OP clearly stated she would have easily scored?

[marvin]

Originally Posted by derwil

I'm going to have a very hard time awarding home in this scenario, just because an attempt at home was not made. If she retreats back to 3rd, well I just don't think she's gonna get home. Show me a reason to give you home. Walk, crawl.....swim to home....something that shows me you wanted to go there. Otherwise I'm gonna assume you're a knucklehead and don't know how to play the game.

Maybe just me..........

Running hard toward home until being knocked down by a defender wasn't enough to demonstrate that the runner was trying to reach home?

[UmpireErnie]

OK I can see where HTBT to know if you really would have awarded home on the OBS; but for the sake of this thread let’s assume that you WERE prepared to award the runner home on the OBS, but now we have this INT over at 2B which finally kills the play.

Can we enforce both OBS and INT on the same play? INT rule says return runner to last base legally touched at time of INT. NFHS 8-5-3 ASA 8-6-C both specify last base touched not awarded.

[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.

[derwil]

Originally Posted by marvin

Running hard toward home until being knocked down by a defender wasn't enough to demonstrate that the runner was trying to reach home?

OP didn't state "running hard", OP stated would have easily scored. Would she have easily scored because the throw came into 2nd base or because she was moving well enough to beat the throw? Would she have beaten the dead ball call at second? I know - all judgement calls and something you'd have to judge on the play itself.

I guess I envisioned the play as the runner getting her legs tangled up at the bag - not moving necessarily fast but because the throw goes to second base she would have scored easily. Throw to home might get her if unobstructed. This is the situation I was commenting on.

If we have an absolute train wreck at third, then sure - give her home. Otherwise you've got to show a little effort - give me a reason to give you the call. Tough situation but I believe there are scenarios that could support two seperate conclusions on R1.

[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.