Interference supersedes obstruction?

[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]