IP vs catchers obstruction

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Assuming you have IP and CO, I don't believe enforcing BOTH is appropriate when you consider that both penalties allow for an option by the manager - play or penalty.

Not so in ASA for the CO. It should be, but the rule books specifically addresses this situation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not so in ASA for the CO. It should be, but the rule books specifically addresses this situation.

(And responding to Crabby)

You had already answered the OP for ASA... thought we were onto the follow up of assuming we had IP and (regular) CO on the same play - how would we rule... I was unclear, but it was to this I was responding.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

(And responding to Crabby)

You had already answered the OP for ASA... thought we were onto the follow up of assuming we had IP and (regular) CO on the same play - how would we rule... I was unclear, but it was to this I was responding.

And to your statement that the penalties were the same is what I was responding.

[Tex]

NFHS reply
There are two important facts that are un-known from the original play description: 1) The pitch count and, 2) Did the rolled ball have the possibility to reach the plate area without the CO, where the batter had the opportunity to properly hit the ball even though the swing will be a golf swing??

A) Rolled ball is ball 4
Batter becomes a batter-runner and offensive coach can take the result of any play or take the IP penalty (Runner to 3rd and Batter to 1st). No CO.

B) Rolled ball is not ball 4.
Now, did the rolled ball have the possibility to reach the plate area without the CO, where the batter had the opportunity to properly hit the ball even though the swing will be a golf swing??
NO - Do not have CO, only an IP (Runner to 3rd and ball on Batter).
YES - Have IP and CO (Runner to 3rd and Batter to 1st).