IP vs catchers obstruction

[RKBUmp]

Taken from another site. Interesting situation brought up. FED rules but believe Asa treat would have same ruling. Runner on 2 pitcher intentionally roles the ball toward home plate. Runner is stealing on the pitch but before ball gets to the plate catcher steps out in front and picks up ball.

There are 2 infractions on the same pitch with completely different outcomes. The IP would advance the runner and add a ball to batters count while the Co would be a dead ball return runner to 2nd and put batter at 1st base. Does one infraction take precedence over the other or do we try to enforce both rulings? Advance the runner to3rd on the IP and put batter on 1?

[BretMan]

My head hurts just thinking about this one!

How about taking the infractions in the order they happened...

Enforce the illegal pitch first. The offensive coach gets the option of the result of the play or the illegal pitch penalty.

If he chooses the IP penalty, the result of the play (catcher's obstruction) is moot. You can't enforce the CO penalty. End result is runner on third, a ball added to the batter's count. (If it's ball four, the batter gets first base, too).

If he chooses the result of the play, then you enforce the CO. The IP is ignored. End result is B/R placed on first, other runner stays on second base.

Now that I think about this some more...wouldn't the end result be the same if you enforced the CO first? You can't enforce both the CO and the IP, since in either case the other one would be "the result of the play". After it all shakes out, the coach gets to pick one or the other and can pick the one that he feels gives his team the best advantage.

[AtlUmpSteve]

What hasn't been stated in this post is that the catcher stepping out and touching the ball before it reaches home plate is only CO if it stopped/hindered the batter from an attempt to hit the ball. In my experience, that isn't a given; in most cases where a ball rolls toward home, the batter will make no effort to hit the ball, and MAYBE is more interested in having the ball hit her!!

So I'm not jumping to rule CO unless I actually have it.

[BretMan]

All true. But I think that the supposition here is that the umpire did rule CO...or else there wouldn't really be any question of what to enforce!

[Andy]

As I stated on the other board....I've got two violations by the defense (with Steve's caveat that CO actually occured, and the pitcher intentionally rolled the ball to the plate), I'm enforcing both of them.

Runner on second to third, batter to first. Next batter.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Start by noting that in the OP from the other site, it did not state the pitcher was intentional in rolling the ball, but I could understand how it could be read that way.

However, to Steve's point, it also read that the catcher jumped up and ran out to get the ball. It doesn't even state if the catcher attempted to get the runner out.

My response is based on this not being an IP and the ball was still rolling toward the plate and as long as that is the case, I'm assuming the ball was hitable.

ASA 8.1.D.3 states that if the catcher does this, the ball is dead, batter is awarded 1B and only runners forced advance.

Well, why is this different than other CO where the manager gets the option? Maybe the manager would prefer the batter stay at the plate with a runner on 3B.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Andy

As I stated on the other board....I've got two violations by the defense (with Steve's caveat that CO actually occured, and the pitcher intentionally rolled the ball to the plate), I'm enforcing both of them.

Runner on second to third, batter to first. Next batter.

I haven't seen the comments on the "other board", but I have a hard time

believing you can enforce both penalties.

I'm more inclined that you get the choice on both, that is.
IP: Choose IP penalty
a) ball plus advance OR
b) resuly of play which is COIf you choose b), then choose
a) Batter to first, runner remains (unless forced) OR
b) IP

simple, eh?