Interference supersedes obstruction?

[ChampaignBlue]

Sorry to be a spoil sport but rule 8-6-b does not apply to catchers obstruction, it says so specifically under 8-6-b-4 "Catcher obstruction of the batter is covered under rule 8,Section 1D." and there is no mention of INT there. So, by rule, I still maintain that the correct call on INT after CO is dead ball, coaches choice. I like the fed idea of including INT "not caused by Obstruction" then when we have the situation of a runner getting hit by a batted ball after CO we can enforce the CO but when we have a runner that INT's with a throw we can have the INT override the CO (I agree that there should be a penalty for stupidly INTing when you've got a CO penalty coming up, I just don't like the idea of there being no penalty for CO when the INT was caused by the CO). Jim

[ronald]

ChampaignBlue

Please lookup in the rules manual who Bob Savoie is and who happens to say that you interpretation is wrong.

[kellerumps]

I don't think 8-6-B-4 applies here. The word "ANY" mentioned in 8-6-B carries alot of weight.

I agree with your reasoning however. The NCAA rulebook is much clearer on this point and agrees with your(and my/our) reasoning. I have not looked at the Federation Rulebook yet as that is last rule book we study.

In any case, IF this happens during a ASA game, I will rule that the INT takes precidence over the CO even though I disagree with it. If it gets to a protest, I will support whatever the UIC says.

[ChampaignBlue]

"Interference supersedes obstruction unless interference is the direct result of obstruction." Bob Savoie

If this is what Bob Savoie said I'm all for it, happy to call that,it's as it should be, but if you're going to stick to the use of "any obstruction" then the "unless" above is wrong because I can't find that word anywhere that it would apply. I believe that by separating CO out with 8-6-b-4 that we are given the opportunity to protect the runner that gets hit by a batted ball with CO. I believe that some rules are left a little gray so that what is fair can be called.

Just like if I have a play where under 8-1-D 4b where if CO with runner on 3rd attempting a squeeze play or steal the runner scores and batter takes 1st, but the batter winds up swinging away and clears the fence I'm giving the batter the home run because that's the right thing. How can I do that by the rules you ask? 10-1-L "The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantageto the offending team."

Unfortunately 10-1-L can't be invoked on the CO/INT play because both teams have commited an infraction and the rules writers either should get the word unless into the rule or accept that 8-6-b-4 gives us leeway to do what is fair. Jim


[Edited by ChampaignBlue on Feb 26th, 2003 at 01:42 PM]

[ronald]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChampaignBlue
[B]"Interference supersedes obstruction unless interference is the direct result of obstruction." Bob Savoie

I hope I didn't put Bob's name to that quote. His name goes with the original play from the other post. The above quote comes from the Oklahoma meeting via Charles Montrose when I asked him what they had finally decided on about the original play involving CO and interference.

[ChampaignBlue]

Originally posted by ronald
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.

Sorry, I infered that Bob said it at the OK meetings.