Interference supersedes obstruction?

[Dakota]

The 2002 ASA rule some of you are looking for is ASA Rule 8-6-B, which says, in part...

"...Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence.

Sounds pretty clear. My memory was telling me this wording was in the context of interference by an obstructed runner (which it is), but I had forgotten that little word any. Pretty important word.

A fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball is protected.

We have a dual infraction play here, and only one penalty can be enforced. It seems reasonable to me (after reflecting on this situation for awhile - I was at first on the side of those who argued for giving the offensive coach the choice under the CO rule) for ASA to rule that the interference enforcement will have precedence, for a lot of good reasons already stated.