This is a situation that is going to be discussed in an upcoming metro clinic and the instructor tells me that it happened in an ASA National. He did not say the age group.

R1 on 2nd and R2 on 1st. B1 swings at pitch and hits the catcher's mitt. F6 is fielding the ball and R1 runs into her.

I got the call right but was not too convincing in my answer and when I thought about it later, I did not like the official ruling. Interference takes precedence over obstruction.

What do the rest of you think of this and does Mike have any insight to this ruling?

Another situation that will be discussed involves three man mechanics, so for those that have done it often it is not difficult. No runners on, line drive or fly ball hit to right. First base umpire goes out. Who has the call at first? I'm sure they are doing this to help those who are learning 3-man and in girls fast pitch this situation often occurs.

I just remembered a play happened like this in a National according to Walter Sparks and none of the other umpires saw the play at first. Neither did the 1st base ump that went out. The girl was out. After a conference, the other crew members hung the 1st base ump out to dry and he made a safe call. His career took a nosedive. Makes me wonder what the heck those officials were doing at a National.

Your scenario is rather confusing. F2 tipped the bat. F6 was attempting to field the batted ball. The runner from 2B runs into F6. Correct?

In my opinion, everything goes back to F2 tipping the bat. The offense gets their choice, and would obviously go with F2's interference/obstruction (depending on rule book used).

Since F2 committed the initial illegal action, there is nothing in the field to punish. The "interference takes precedence over obstruction" has no bearing on this situation.

Bob

It is an ASA rules book.

Bob, I'll try a rephrase. When the batter swings, the swing makes contact (that is what you are calling the tip)with the catcher's glove or mitt. The hit ball goes to the shortstop and when in position to field the hit ball is run into by the runner that was on 2nd. According to the instructor, the correct ruling is interference by r1, dead ball, an out and batter gets 1st base and r2 would be forced to 2nd. Also according to the instructor, this play occurred in a national. Of course, I can't verify that point so I take him at his word.

I've always thought that on catchers interference, the offense had the choice of taking the result of the play, or the batter receiving first base and all other runners returning to the base occupied at time of pitch, unless forced to advance. I know that is the baseball rule, always thought it was the same in softball.

If that is the case, then why would r1 be declared out? If the offense decides to take the result of the play, then I would call r1 out, but if they take the other option, then I have bases loaded.

gs23,

I thought the same exact thing when the play was being described to me and that makes a lot more sense to me. However, I also remembered learning that intereference takes precedence over obstruction and that is what I told him. That situation is going to generate a lot of excitement at the meeting in February. He was testing what I knew about the rules. The instructor does not like the ruling either but he has been told that it is the ASA rule and that play will be brought up in the clinic.

Yeah...that still doesn't make any sense. Why would they want it enforced that way?

I always thought that the intererence taking precedence applied to an obstructed runner who then causes inference.
Example: R1 at first, B1 hits line drive to LCF gap. B1 is obstructed rounding first base. LF get ball and is throwing to F6 to cut for a play at the plate, B1 then runs into F6 on his way to third as F6 is fielding the throw. In that situation, then I would call the interference over the obstruction.

I think if a player other than the obstruced runner causes interference, as in this threads case, then one should't take precedence over the other, should be decided on a situation by situation basis.

I agree and hope to get a better explanation at the clinic.

Ronald,

I would apply rule 8.6.B(4) to this situation which says:
<i>Runners ae entitled to advance without liability to be put out, when catcher's obstruction occurs.</i>

Also logic would say that the runner cannot interfere on this play because if F6 does throw the BR out at 1st, then she would be awarded 1st anyway.

The tenet that "interferennce supercedes obstruction" generally only applies to an obstructed runner who interferes after she has been obstructed. IMO.

Samc

As I understand the rules your mechanics on this play would be to give the Delayed dead ball signal on the obstruction. When the INT occurs Dead Ball R1 is out as well as R2 if deemed an intentional act. Call over offensive coach, assuming that s/he isn't already on the way to you to complain about the obstruction and give coach the option of bases loaded or R1 out.
Had the INT occured after everyone had advanced a base then the delayed dead ball would have been removed.
I think where the INT takes precedence is when you have both occuring at the same time, for example, infielder is standing in a basepath with no immediate play and runner crashes into her, we'll be calling a dead ball and the runner out for the crash/INT and warning the infielder about the dangers of standing in basepaths. We do this for the safety of the players, fielders are watching the ball and runners are looking where they are going. Jim

I was following this until ChampaignBlue's last post, and I think I missed something. In the example, "infielder is standing in a basepath with no immediate play and runner crashes into her, we'll be calling a dead ball and the runner out for the crash/INT", why would a runner be out for an apparent obstruction by the defense? A fielder with no play just standing in the way in a base path is obstructing the runner and interferring with the runner's right to the base path to advance. The runner hasn't interferred with the non-existant play that the infielder isn't making. I agree, running over infielders can cause injury (this isn't football, though most of the girls around here play it that way, and expect it to be called as such), but if I'm correctly visualizing this, calling interference and the runner out will immediately result in all defensive players not involved in a play standing to block the next base, counting on more crashes and runners called out without the defense ever coming close to making a play.

I agree that to avoid injury, in a perfect world, the runner should avoid the infielder and count on obstruction being called in case everyone doesn't reach the best base they would have without having gone around the infielder. But I have seen more problems resulting from "creative defense" by not giving runners their right of way than problems with overagressive base running.

Maybe ASA will back up this preposterous ruling, but I don't read it that way at all. Nothing in the case book supports this instructor's claim. And while the rule book does give a general statement—"should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence"—I believe they're talking about a runner who interferes after being obstructed. The book examples deal with a runner being obstructed and then that same runner committing interference:

"An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, for leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, <i>for an act of interference,</i> or for passing another runner." (I edited to correct the book's horrendous construction.) Also POE #34: "An obstructed runner could be called out between the two bases the runner was obstructed if they were properly appealed for missing a base or leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched. <i>If the runner committed an act of interference after the obstruction, this too would overrule the obstruction."</i> Another grammatical and syntactical abomination, but the main point is that a runner who is obstructed doesn't have license to interfere.

Note this strange ruling, too, from POE #34: "A runner leaving second base too soon on a fly ball is returning after the ball is caught and is obstructed between 2B and 3B. <i>If the runner would not have made it back to 2B prior to the throw arriving, he would remain out.</i> So if he <i>would</i> have been out, there's no obstruction? Where did that idea come from? How about the runner on 2B who trips over F6 five steps off the bag and then F5 tags 3B for a force out? The runner would have been out so we ignore the obstruction? Or does we ignore it only if he's running in reverse?

Yes, the book gives the general statement, but many such statements in the ASA book cannot be taken literally.

To me, catcher's obstruction would be the call in this case. Now if, after the batter swung and hit F2's glove, he hit a roller down the 1B line and then ran over F3 as he was fielding it, maybe that's a different story.

Greymule,

I talked to him earlier and he said their association had an official ruling from Henry Pollard and Bob somebody.

Instructor doesn't like the ruling by the way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greymule

Nothing in the case book supports this instructor's claim.

It's not his claim. It's a situation that occurred and according to the instructor they got an official ruling. Furthermore, the association is going to go over the situation at their clinic. In is one of the bigger metro associations in the USA, so I think (I can't be 100% sure though) they are on solid ground.

You quote the rule that they probably used to justify their decision. It certainly follows from the wording. We have an obstruction followed by interference so enforce the interference and ignore the obstruction seems to be what they are saying. The fact that the examples deal with different details of interference and obstruction does not allow us to infer that the interference takes precedence over obstruction does not apply in this situation. Do we have a rule that contradicts interference precedes the obstruction so that we can enfore the obstruction and ignore the interference in this situation? If we have one, great because I do not like this interpretation and I'd say most others do not either.


POE #34 is strange.

I emailed the situation to Merle Butler to verify that this is correct. Can't be sure when I'll get a response but he has always answered previos e-mails about rule interpretations. Will update when I get a response.

As I said, maybe ASA will affirm the ruling. And apparently they did. However, I suspect that the people who wrote the rule did not have that play in mind.

To me, it's like somebody taking 8-8-E literally: "The runner is out when anyone other than another runner physically assists the runner while the ball is in play." Well, if a runner fell down and F6 helped him up, would you call the runner out on a physical assist? Doubt it, but according to the literal wording in the book, he's out. I have a feeling the same kind of overly literal interpretation has been applied in the obstruction case.

But if that's the rule, then that's what we call.

Ronald,

I've been following this thread hoping for some light at the end of the tunnel. Merle will shed that light. Please let us know what his answer is when you get the email.
I think that the obstruction by the catcher has to be ruled upon and the coach given the option first, but then what about the crash by R1? Dead ball? R1 out? My brain hurts!
If I knew how to work Glen's cartoon characters, I would insert one now!

:>)

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

And if they scheduled the game on Wednesday, it may have been rained out and none of this happened!

Sorry, Martin, cannot buy into that theory. The point is that the batter meant to contact the ball and put it into fair play. You are not penalizing a team "not at fault" as ALL runners not in contact with a base are required to avoid interfering with fielders attempting a play on a live batted ball.

What do you expect of the fielder? It is not the fielder's responsibility to think, "my goodness, I believe the bat may have contacted the catcher's mitt, so there is no need to go after that ball."

The ball is live, runs may score and it is possible that outs can be accomplished on the play, that is why it is a delayed dead ball.

Interference is a live ball rules violation. Catcher's obstruction does not pardon players from their responsibility to abide by the rules.

BTW, in a 3-umpire system, the BR/Runner is U3's responsibility all the way to 3B. U1 trails BR and "assists" in watching the BR touch 1B then return, in foul territory, to the left side of the plate area.

So, actually, U2 is the only umpire who did not have the responsibility to watch the BR touch 1B.

I've stayed out of this so far 'cause it has been an ASA ruling but:

Calling it catcher's interference is a baseball thing, OBR rules to be correct. It is the only time that the defense may "interfer". Fed baseball and all softball codes I'm aware of call it catcher's obstruction.

Martin's theory makes sense, and would be the proper interpertation in Fed softball, USSSA softball, Pony softball, and both baseball codes.(IMO)

When multiple infractions occcur on the same play, you generally peanalize the first infraction first. If that penalty negates folowing action on the same play, the secondary infraction would be disregarded. If the first penalty does not negate following actions, then you peanalize in the order the infractions occured. If a second infraction negates folowing actions, then again you go no futher, and so forth.

In the sitch at hand, only if the interference included "malicious" or "un-sportsman like" contact on F6 would the offense be peanalized under the codes I listed.

Did that confuse everbody? If not, let me tell you the story of a baseball game in which on one play I had a "catcher's balk", my partner had a pitcher's balk, and then I had catcher's interference (OBR rules), in that order, with the bases juced and a saftey squeze on!!!

Roger Greene

Post script:
I may have confused some with this post. My appology. Fed 8-4-3b has an execption to the general rule as I pointed out below. It would apply if there was an obsruction by a fielder, but IMO would not apply to catcher's obstruction.

My interpertation here only applys to the sitch in which we have catcher's obstruction followed by a runner interfering with the delayed dead ball play.

Roger

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2003 at 06:43 PM]

Speaking FED
 

If I follow your logic, the runner on 2B is awarded 3B on the obstruction call therefore no interference could have happened (assuming no USC). That makes sense, yet Mike's position that you still have a live ball situation during which interference is a violation, also makes sense.

What then is a application of the sentence in the FED book (8-3 or 8-4) that says "interference takes precedence over obstruction?"

I am wondering how I would call the following. Batter hit soft fly over 1B and tries to turn it into a double. Tangles with F3, regains balance and continues to 2B. Throw from F9 to F4 beats runner; runner colides with F4 (no slide)causing F4 to drop ball.

Had there not been obstruction, it would not have been close at 2B and no interference would have occured. Can the umpire make that judgement? Or do we award the runner 2B and negate the interference call?

If we are going to call her out for interference, then the situation changes if the runner simply stops and lets F4 walk up and tag her. She can not be put out between the bases where obstruction occured so she is going to be awarded 2B (or returned to 1B). Does that same rule ("can not be put out . . .) prevent us from calling her out for interference?

Now - Roger - tell us about that catcher's balk!
WMB

Here is where we get to the rub.

FED 8-4-3b deals with obstruction of a runner by a fielder not in possession of the ball, ect. The section closes with the wording "...Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence;..."

Now the question becomes : Does "any obstruction" include catcher's obstruction (found in 8-1-2d) or does it just refer to any obstruction as defined in 8-4-3b. IMO it just deals with 8-4-3b obstructions. If it also applied to 8-1-2d, then that wording would have been added to the "Effect" clauses under 8-1-2d.

Therefore, since the obstruction by a fielder is excepted from the general rule of enforcement priorites, we enforce the interference even though it happened after the 8-4-3b obstruction. The 8-1-2d obstruction is not excepted, so we must follow the general rule of priorities.

See 2003 play 8.4.3 Situation B (an example of general rule of priorities).

As for the catcher's balk, if you are asking what it is, it is a violation of OBR 7.07 as opposed to catcher's interference found in 6.08c. At times the same actions could violate either rule, and there is a conflict on which penalty should be enforced if that happens with R2 and R3 only.

Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2003 at 03:04 PM]

Re: Speaking FED
 

Not in ASA.

Mike.............

Don't we penalize the events in the order they happen? Catcher's obstruction occured first.........

In the POE section I believe it says that CO is only cancelled if the batter and all other runners advance at least one base........the offensive coach gets a choice to take the play if anything else happens................. i.e. - interference.......or the penalty for CO............

I don't have my rulebook or casebook in front of me.........

But, I based on my recolection..........I don't see an ASA rule that would overule the CO in this play.

Joel

BTW.........nice to see all of y'all again.

Still speaking ASA

I don't see an ASA rule it says you ignore interference. Think about this. It is a live ball. The defense is permitted to put out other runners during this period as long as the obstructed player is not put out.

Folks here have made mention of penalizing the team that caused the action. What about rewarding the team that plays in an unsportsmanlike manner?

BTW, welcome back, Joel.


Say you have a runner on 1B and the batter's swing is obstructed and hits a slow roller to F4. Stupid SP batter just stands at the plate screaming "interference, blue". Meanwhile R1 sees F4 step up to field the ball and plows him over. Are you going to reward the team that just had a player intentionally run over F4 by placing B2 on 1B & R1 on 2B? According to just about everyone on this thread, that's the call. If you don't call the interference, you cannot call the out. And interference in this case does not require intention.

Whatever ASA says is the correct ruling, their book is ambiguous and permits plausible argument both ways.

Roger says that if interference does indeed cancel the CO, then ASA is in conflict with Fed softball, OBR, Pony, etc. So ASA's reasoning is not necessarily natural and obvious, since those other entities have apparently gone the other way on this play.

As far as the runner plowing over F4 goes, we always have the option of ejection. We can all cite plays in which a runner is ejected but not called out, and perhaps this is one of them.

I haven't found this exact play in any of my case books. I just gave the interpertation that I have been taught to use in the codes I mentioned. Further I stated the reasoning I used to support those interps in my post above.

When dealing with rules interpertations, just like appealate courts, sometimes logic does not apply!

If ASA adopts the interp discussed here, other codes may or may not follow.

Roger Greene

Hello all its been awhile. I have been sitting on the sidelines trying to figure this play out. I am so confused that I have sent it to NCAA Rules Interp for a ruling. I have also asked for a ASA Interp. In asking for these interps I want the rules and rational.

Mike I have a question regarding this statement.

<B>I don't see an ASA rule it says you ignore interference. Think about this. It is a live ball. The defense is permitted to put out other runners during this period as long as the obstructed player is not put out.</B>

Yes Mike the defense is allowed to attempt to make an out. But in this play, had the interference not occured, then isn't the outcome the BR gets first and all other baserunners advance 1 base if forced otherwise they return to the base previously occupied?

That would depend on the outcome of the play. If all runners advance one base and the BR reaches 1B safely, the CO is ignored. Say F6 kicks the play without the INT, but picks off R1 rounding 3B, the out stands with no option. OTOH, maybe F6 puts out R2 at 2B and the coach opts to take the result of the play with a runner on 3B and a good hitter at the plate. That's my point. The ball is live until the BR is put out or all play obviously ends. The suggestion seems to be to ignore all other rules in this case.

What if the batter hit a pop up involving CO and F3 is camped near the line to catch it and the BR knocks F3 over before catching the ball? R1 now scores, R2 to 3B and BR ends up on 2B. Do you just ignore the INT? According to the post on this thread you do.

I wish whoever posted this damn thing to start would get that answer from Merle, I sure am tired of defending the original clinician's interpretation.

Mike,

I now understand where you are coming from. I am still waiting a response as well from my contacts.

I've gotta believe we will end up with bases loaded no outs with the CO taking precedent over the INT since all baserunners did not advance one base(When forced) on the CO.

We will soon see.

Mike,

I have checked my e-mail waiting for a response from Merle but have not received anything yet. I hope he answers soon.

As soon as he does, I'll post his response.

I'm not advocating ignoring the INT on the play, just the statement that the INT supercedes the CO. In the original play and the play above I would give the coach the option of the play which includes the INT (R2 in the original play or the BR in the play above is out for INT), or the penalty for the CO, the BR to 1st and other runners advance if forced. To me that seems to be the fair and reasonable thing to do.

SamC

Sam,

You cannot do that. On both plays, each runner moved up one base safely and the BR reached 1B. By rule, there is no option to be offered to the coach. The only way to avoid that is to rule interference, but when you do that, you must call an out.

If you read my posts, you will see that I did not use the "interference supercedes obstruction" argument.

I don't see anything fair about your resolution. All runners are responsible for avoiding a fielder attempting to play a fair batted or fly ball. There are no exceptions to that rule.

In the original post, what if R1 scores and you end up with runners at the corners because of the INT by R1? If this is the case, you would have runners pushing fielders out of the way every opportunity every time they saw the left arm go out.

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.

I think we can all agree that the rule should be rewritten to remove contradictions and conflicts. My problem with automatically calling an out for INT while I have CO is that the defense gets all the breaks if INT occurs AFTER the CO.
Let's take this play into consideration. Bases loaded, 2 out,full count, runners take off with the pitch and there's CO but the ball clips R3 on the heal. Without the INT we'd probably still have bases loaded with a run in. With the enforcement of INT 1st we have a new inning with no run scored despite the fact that the CO could have been the difference between the ball hitting R3 or not. To me it seems that the defense is being rewarded for breaking a rule.
Realistically the only time we'd have INT on CO is an infielder fielding a batted ball or throwing for a quick out because anything hit to the outfield is likely to advance the runners and take off the CO. The reason that we have INT is so that the Offense can't do something to prevent the defense from getting an out or if intentional, 2 outs. When there is CO we say that the defense only gets an out if the offense chooses to let them have an out but it's being suggested that if the offense commits INT, no matter how it occurs, the same runner that we would have been protecting is now going to be called out even though the INT may have been initiated by the CO. I maintain that the original call of dead ball, announce the out(s) then give the coach the choice play or CO is fair because if CO is chosen offense gets what offense would have gotten automatically, if play is chosen offense only gets what they got before INT, no advantage gained. JMHO JIm

[Edited by ChampaignBlue on Feb 10th, 2003 at 12:48 PM]

Sorry, but I totally disagree with the reasoning above. I don't think anything needs to be rewritten.

Apparently, you are under the misconception that obstruction protects everyone on the field, it does not. ONLY the offensive player who was obstructed is protected. All others remain in jeopardy and are subject to all rules involving them.

There is NOTHING fair about letting the offense run roughshod over the rules simply because there was CO.

I have not got an "Official" Ruling yet....but from my 2 NCAA assigners and 1 National Committee Member it is looking like the INT is overlooked and we have runners on 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Further, every college umpire I have talked to has said the same thing.

Still waiting on an Offical Ruling but the reasoning goes that the Catcher put the Offense at a disadvantage by Obstructing. I gotta agree.

about the original play
 

I was able to sit in on the conversation regarding the original play while in Oklahoma City this past weekend with some of the members of the casebook committee.
I heard some pretty spirited discussion and a good time was had by all.
In the end, the interference was called from the last discussion I was privelege to.........but that doesn't mean that they had decided that this was the correct call at that time.
I understand that this will be discussed at the National School in Atlanta on the 22nd and 23rd of this month, by Henry Pollard and the other clinicians.

I am looking forward to the discussion and will let you know what is decided.

Re: about the original play
 

Scott,

It was nice meeting you. Speaking of spirited discussion, how about the discussion on the floor about the new SP mechanic. My partner and I was talking to Bernie right afterwards and he was somewhat concerned over how things went down. When asked about the "three knockdown rule", he told me it was waived for that discussion. Then Mike DeLeo came over and started laughing and Bernie appeared, let's say, a bit less than a happy camper.

Nonetheless, I have always believed the experience of OKC is just unbelieveable. I had two of my deputies with me and they were just taken back by the cammeraderie and info floating about.

Standing 8 count
 

Bernie needed more than one standing 8 count on that deal......
We almost had a TKO and would have had Henry not come forward.
Down here, we have had a few people switch to the new mechaninc to see how they feel about it and in order to get it seen.
But for the rest of teh association, they are going to wait until there is a written version of it presented (per our UIC).
There is resistance but also ready acceptance. As I feared, the lazy umpire has become even more lazy but there is hope that it will change.

It was good to meet you in OKC and I had a great time there even with the shootout from the floor.

Re: Standing 8 count
 

I'm going to institute the mechanic into our Championship Play and encourage the locals to put it in place ON AN EXPERIMENTAL basis.

I will be more than happy to collect feedback from this season and pass it on to Henry.

I have been away from this site for a week now, and look at what ya'll have done to this thread!!!

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/eek2.gif

Scott

I have not heard anything from Merle Butler; however, last night I attend GWASA clinic and talked to the umpire who made the original call (UIC FOR GWASA). I got a minor detail wrong. Only runner on 2nd base.

He and his patner ruled originally interference over the obstruction and later thought they had gotten it wrong but the regional UIC Bob Samoy ? told them that they had gotten it correct.

It was discussed at the Oklahoma meeting and he reports that they came away with the following: Interference supersedes obstruction unless interference is the direct result of obstruction. They did bring up some other situations that made for a lively discussion and will work on those in the casebook committee.

This area will revisit this case again this Sunday, I am told, at the Metro Washington DC Clinic.

That means the call was made by either Ron Galemore (sp), Judy Cole, (fp) or Joey DeFranco (jo), all UICs in this area and good umpires. Being from the same region, I spent half my time with these folks in OKC and the subject never came up.

BTW, the RUIC is Bob Savoie, my contact with the Nat. Staff.

Mike,

I did not really want to give the guy's name but it was Chick Montrose. The play occured in girl's fastpitch. He's listed as the UIC for GWASA and a Deputy UIC with DCASA.

I have worked with Judy out of Northern Virginia but not the others. She was the first person to ever evaluate me correcting some deficiencies and teaching me to use the slot and track the ball with the nose. She's really good and steps up for the umpires. She pushed for and got the powers to be to give umpires who had never worked high school playoffs the chance last year. Of course, those that did so earned the privilege. Since you are both ISF qualified, I imagine you have worked together.

Thanks for the spelling on Bob's name.

Yes, I know Chick. He, too, was in OKC with us. Great guy and fantastic instructor. I've only worked with Ron Galemore, locally in DE (Ron and Jack Mowatt came up to work some games) and at the Men's Interservice Championships last year. I know Judy from different meetings and clinics, Regional and National. And, obviously, Bob Savoie is my boss.

I guess the designation of UIC is semantical. In Delaware, the label of UIC and DUIC are reserved for the State/Metro level. The instructors and persons responsible for interpretations at the local association level are referred to as Rules Interpreters. However, many of those folks are usually very capable of doing the job of a UIC/DUIC if necessary.

Not to be picky, Judy and I are both certified, but her's is in FP while mine is SP.

I know Judy and I also had Jack Mowatt along with Bob at a National here in Marietta, Ga. a few years back. Jack gave me a great umpire pin that many, many girls have tried to trade with me.
Of course, to my great joy, I've had Bob as UIC at 4 of the Nationals I've called! 3 FP, 1 SP. I hope we get this question resolved; but I would call the inference 1st.
Hasn't this been a great thread?

Here's the link to my web site that I'd like all of y'all to visit when you have the time. Please sign the guest book!

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/communit...upid=89183&ck=

Thanks! :>)