Interference supersedes obstruction?

[kellerumps]

"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

[whiskers_ump]

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

[kellerumps]

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

[greymule]

Wasn't that wording simply a clarification somebody obtained from an ASA official regarding the CO-followed-by-INT play?

[Steve M]

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

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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,

[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.

[ronald]

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.

[kellerumps]

"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.

[ronald]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[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.

[ronald]

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.

[kellerumps]

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.