Sure will be glad when Merle or someone from the same
office replies to this. It is getting confusing. I
thought SamC had it nailed, then Mike stated with all
his input. All I can say is I hope it does not take
place in my game until we get the final ruling. Lot
of good points in the posts, but has made it just a little
confusing.

http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/mecry.gif

http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/smurf.gif
glen

I do not remember a thread making it to four pages in the past.

I'm done. I'll wait for a ruling.

Mike has hit it right on the nose.

ball is live and the interfernce is an out. CO for BR.

thanks

Is that the ruling? Interference out for the runner but CO for the batter?

If so, let's see what crazy possibilities we can concoct.

How about runners at the corner, one out. Suicide squeeze. Catcher obstructs batter who then pops up to F3. R1 continues straight to home without retagging and R2 bumps into F3 on way back to 1st after R1 crosses the plate and F3 drops what should have been an easy catch. Does the run score? Jim

Well, if interference by anyone overrides any and all obstruction, then we probably call a double play: runner out for interference bumping F3 and BR out because runner interfered on easy infield pop. If that's not 3 outs, the runner on 3B would have to go back.

If CO is its own unusual case, then the coach would get his choice and obviously take the obstruction.

If both interference and CO are sustained, then the runner who interfered is out, BR goes to 1B, and runner on 3B goes back. But is the batter out on the easy pop interference instead?

Next scenario?

The ASA rule 8 1 D Effect:4 b. specificaly states that if CO on a squeeze play that the run scores, batter gets 1st and it is a DEAD BALL. Which gives one pause to wonder about a home run hit on CO when a runner from 3rd is trying to score...did a lawyer write this? Jim

Sorry, I just cannot resist this.

<img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/acclaim.gif>

So runners are permitted to interfere on CO on a squeeze play? Guess so, if the ball is immediately dead.

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

Good Job as usual Mike!

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

Mike, where do you find those cute little thingies? My take on this rule is that since the ASA has created a seperate category of obstruction for catchers that the intent is to protect the offense because the defense screwed up at the very beginning of the play. It is in direct conflict with INT and even itself (see above). Until I hear from above I'd go with delayed dead ball and give the coach the option at the end (if everybody didn't advance). The offense doesn't benifit by INT on CO because it deadens the ball and everyone gets only the one which they would have gotten had there not been INT. The offense in fact could lose by INT because had they let the play go they would have had a chance to advance more than one base if the defense boots the play. If the INT occurs after everyone has advanced then the CO is ignored and the INT outs would stand and the coach is not given the option. If the INT is also UC then the UC takes hold but UC does not always translate to an out. Jim

Jim,

Go to the following site and have fun!!!!!!!

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/

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

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

glen

Mike, you got this one nailed - as usual. Merle did discuss this play at the DFW ASA Clinic on 1/4. The ruling sounded odd at the time, but after letting it soak in, it does make sense. Even it didn't, the authorities have spoken.

Gary

This is a test.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/bartskate2.gif

Jim,

The only problem with your take is that if all runners advance one base and the BR reaches 1B safely, by rule the CO never existed and an interference call is not the after-the-fact type of call. Therefore, if the offense scores on a play that they may not have had the INT not occurred, and all offensive players moved up one base safely, the offense not only gains an advantage, but could possibly score the winning run on such a play.

Many to whom I spoke this past weekend in OKC tend to agree that on this play, both offenses (INT & CO) should be handled as independent events. Since the INT killed the play, that is effected first and then apply the CO.