Well, I'll be eager to hear what the head honchos have to say about this one.

OK... Notwithstanding the instructor's claimed official interp, one step at a time.

Catcher obstruction - delayed dead ball, and enforcement depends on the result of the play. If BR does not reach first, and all runners do not advance one base safely, the coach gets his choice (results of the play or enforcement of obstruction). Otherwise, obstruction is ignored.

Runner interference - immediate dead ball, runner out, other runners returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Why didn't all runners advance one base safely? Because of an infraction by the offense, rather than because of a play by the defense. Should the offense be "rewarded" by giving their coach a choice because of the out caused by interference? I'll bet that thinking is behind the official ruling.

In that light, the ruling is not so off-the-wall (IMO).

Sorry Panda, my bad. Around here we tell our runners that just because an infielder is stupid and stands in a basepath that it doesn't make them fair game. We still expect you to go around them and we'll give you obstruction, if you lower a shoulder and take 'em out we'll be calling INT (based on the fact that you've just knocked down someone that may be receiving a throw soon)and we'll be ejecting. Obviously this doesn't apply when the defense is wandering or making sudden moves, only when the runner has a resonable chance to avoid a collision. Jim

Well, I guess I'll reply to the second part of Ronald's situations. In 3 man mechanics, in my opinion, when the ball is hit to right field and the first base umpire goes out, the call on a possible play at first belongs to the plate umpire. This would include a throw from the right fielder, the runner touching the base, possible obstruction, and in some instances, possible fair/foul responsibilites.

Buck,

That's what I got to for the second one.

Nothing to it, but to do it Elaine.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/how.gif

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/papa.gif
glen

And BTW I agree with SamC's post on this.

One more point on this: there is no question that the offense is not free to interfere just because there has been obstruction. We all agree that runner interference supersedes regular fielder obstruction. However, catcher's obstruction has that stipulation, which fielder obstruction does not, that the offensive coach gets the option of taking either the play or the obstruction.

OK, coach. Do you want the catcher's obstruction or are you going to take the play, where your runner would be out for interference?

The book says that interference overrides obstruction. Where does it say that the coach gets his choice on catcher's obstruction <i>unless</i> there's interference? Two rules are in conflict, and the book should, under catcher's obstruction, insert clarifying wording.

It is high time that the ASA book was rewritten by people who know how to write unambiguously. (Same goes for every other rule book.)

In response to Grey. I don't know about ASA but it is in Fed rules. It simply states that if the batter hits the ball and was obstructed by the catcher, and reaches first base safely, and all runners advance a base, then the obstruction is ignored. However, if this is not the case, then the offensive coach would have the choice of the play or having the obstruction penalty enforced. Speaking Federation, of course.

You're right, Buck. I omitted that the coach gets his choice only if the batter and all runners do not advance at least one base. I figured that with interference, that would have to be the case, but of course it might not be: they could all advance and then somebody interferes. Anyway, if they do advance a base, the catcher's obstruction is off.

I should heed my own advice about writing unambiguously!

Grey, thanks for your help. I've been umpiring for 3 years and this season I will be doing college games as well as high school so I can assure you all help is appreciated. I try to learn something about our business every day, including mechanics, and especially applications of the rules. It's easy for someone to pick up our rule book and read it but I think sometimes we really need to spend some time understanding the actual intent of the rule. My opinion is that our job as umpires has a constant learning curve and it's opinions from guys like you, Tom, Sam, and some of the others that help this cause. Thanks again, and I'll keep in touch.....

Okay, my turn.

First off, I find it hard to believe an umpire on this board referred to this as "catcher's interference".

I don't think this is such a far stretch to understand the instructor's interpretation. Merle may come back with something else, but let's remember one thing-obstruction only protects the person offended and those affected by it.

The runner's interference was not a result of the obstruction.

My call would be to kill the play when the INT occurred. Rule R1 out on the INT (as it was a rules violation independent of the CO). If intentional, R1 would also be gone. Since the runners were forced to evacuate their bases by the batted ball, R2 will not be ruled out at 2B even if INT was intentional. Since the options bring about identical results, R2 would be placed on 2B and the batter on 1B.

Where did someone refer to "catcher's interference"? I don't see it.

It's in bluezebra's post (#2 in the thread) and gs23's post (#4 in the thread).

Actually, I was referring to the latter as Bob stipulated different rule books. Must be one of those baseball things :)

So the correct ruling is to penalise the team not at fault? After all, who caused the miss-hit?

I see it this way; if the catcher's obstruction had not occured then the ball may not have been hit to ss & the interference would not have happened. I'm for calling the ball dead, award BR 1st and advance runners on the force.

The second question:- with no runners on, the plate umpire has the call at 1st.

Martin