Don't like the call

[ronald]

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.

[bluezebra]

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

[ronald]

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.

[gsf23]

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.

[ronald]

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.

[gsf23]

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.

[ronald]

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

[SamNVa]

Ronald,

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

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

[ChampaignBlue]

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

[Panda Bear]

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.

[greymule]

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, for an act of interference, 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. If the runner committed an act of interference after the obstruction, this too would overrule the obstruction." 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. If the runner would not have made it back to 2B prior to the throw arriving, he would remain out. So if he would 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.

[ronald]

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.

[ronald]

[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.

[greymule]

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.

[Elaine "Lady Blue"]

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!

:>)