The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 23, 2003, 11:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 298
"Interference supersedes obstruction unless interference is the direct result of obstruction"

Silly question I am sure. Where is this located the 2002 Rule Book? I've got a handle on the NCAA equivilant, but not ASA.

Thanks
__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 23, 2003, 02:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
kellerumps,

This is the only thing I could find.

POE #34 states:

" An OB'D 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."


glen
__________________
glen _______________________________
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
--Mark Twain.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 01:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 298
I found the POE, but nothing else. In the NCAA rulebook there is a specific paragraph that deals with this. Since the rule books are similar I thought is would be easy to find. I was wrong.

Anyone else??? I just want something concrete.

Thanks
__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 02:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Wasn't that wording simply a clarification somebody obtained from an ASA official regarding the CO-followed-by-INT play?
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 02:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
For ASA, take a look at Rule 8, Section 5, I think it's article B. That sez something to the effect of "The penalty for interference will take precedence when an obstructed runner commits interference." I'm sure that's not word for word, but the meaning is the same.

Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 04:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 298
Greymule,

I'm not sure....I know I have yet to come across anyone who says that in the CO/Interference play that we have an out somewhere. I don't have a "Official" NCAA ruling yet, but, all of my "Assigners" are in agreement that in this case CO will take precidence. I have found some backing in the NCAA rulebook but not the ASA book yet.

I just want to understand the rule, the intent of the rule, and how to apply correctly.

__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 04:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by kellerumps
Greymule,

I'm not sure....I know I have yet to come across anyone who says that in the CO/Interference play that we have an out somewhere. I don't have a "Official" NCAA ruling yet, but, all of my "Assigners" are in agreement that in this case CO will take precidence. I have found some backing in the NCAA rulebook but not the ASA book yet.

I just want to understand the rule, the intent of the rule, and how to apply correctly.

Mr. & Mrs.,

I would be willing to bet that the first time an NCAA game is decided by an act of interference on a CO, the rule will be changed.

JMHO,

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 05:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 298
IrishMafia,

I understand that you are frustrated with this argument since both sides can not see eye to eye. I am really trying to see your side of things therefor, I am looking for anything in the ASA rulebook that supports your argument.

As of right now, I can not find anything in the 2002 ASA Rule book to support your argument. Please give me something....I want to understand your point of view from the ASA side of things.

__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 05:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Kellerumps,

I believe there is something somewhere that says interference supercedes obstruction. Given that catcher obstruction is a form a obstruction, then it seems that we would apply this rule or principle. And just as you say that you can't find anything in the ASA rule book about this play, you also have to admit that you can not find anything to justify catcher obstruction superceding or not ruling on the interference.


The reference to "interference ... unless ..." came out of the nation UIC conference and comes from the UIC who made the original call. Granted we were not there to hear the words but the UIC gave me the impression that he was a witness to those words. That appears to be the interpretation of ASA. All I can do is provide the best information I can.

Finally, I was not privy to the conversation when the original interference supercedes obstruction got into the rule book either in the rule section or POE. For all we know, they may have thought about this (CO/interference) but did not deem it important enough to clarify that (improbable probably). So, I believe, whether we agree, like it or not, we are left with one ruling to make until we get something different.

From my limited access to a seat at the big table, I'd say ASA has spoken. It will be applied that way in Greater DC area at least.

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 10:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 298
"I believe there is something somewhere that says interference supercedes obstruction."

Please tell me where it says that because I can not find it. Please use the 2002 rulebook.

My whole point is that the defense started this fiasco when the catcher obstructed. Without that one act, we may have had a basehit. In essence you are rewarding the defense with an "Out" because the catcher did something that altered the play from the beginning. I don't see how you can reward the defense. Now please understand I am not talking about malicious contact. I am talking about your garden variety interference call.

I have spoken with my State UIC and he is as clueless as the rest of us. All I want is something concrete in the ASA rulebook.
__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 24, 2003, 10:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Kellerumps,

I'll look for it but I think it is in the POE. In the meantime can you find me something that says ignore the interference and only call and enforce obstruction.

Irishmafia had given strong reasons why not to ignore the interference in the other thread.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 25, 2003, 07:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by kellerumps
IrishMafia,

I understand that you are frustrated with this argument since both sides can not see eye to eye. I am really trying to see your side of things therefor, I am looking for anything in the ASA rulebook that supports your argument.

As of right now, I can not find anything in the 2002 ASA Rule book to support your argument. Please give me something....I want to understand your point of view from the ASA side of things.

Look at it this way. Where in the book does it say interference is ever ignored?

Even a protected runner is not exempt from being ruled out for interference, so why would anyone think that a runner not protected would be exempt?

It's a bit like trying to prove a negative.

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 25, 2003, 10:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
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.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 25, 2003, 10:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Dakota,

Thanks for the citation. That is the one I was thinking of because I had read it and the word any stuck out too. I saw it in the realm of baserunning also but that little word any can be construed to include catcher obstruction IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 25, 2003, 05:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 298
Smile

Thank You........Now we can put this argument to rest(at least in the ASA rulebook!). Despite everything, we all learned something which is what this board is all about.

What's next??????

Thanks Again.
__________________
We Don't Look for Problems.....They find Us.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1