The rule is ASA 8-7-J(5), but it requires intent on the part of the runner to get the interference call.

Really Tom? I don't remember intent being required. Must be that pesky Old-Timer's disease kicking in. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/Cartangry.gif

SamC

My wife tells me it's called CRS :D

I'm still having problems with the original interference call - only because it is the obstuction that caused the interference. F3 comes charging in like a bull in a china shop and scares the bejezus out of the runner who attempts to avoid getting steamrolled (okay - I may be exagerating a bit) and bumps the catcher. As long as I don't see intent, I don't think I can find anything more than a train wreck between BR and F2. The "interference" was caused by the obstruction - that has to be the prevailing infraction. If the ball is caught though - it's an out, plain and simple.

-(thickheaded??) Kono

Where the OTD is kicking in (maybe) is with runner interfering with a fielder on the deflected ball v. runner getting hit by an untouched batted ball after passing an infielder. The first is 8-7-J(5) and the second is 8-7-K.

Both require a fielder to have an opportunity for an out.

The deflected ball requires intent. Getting hit by the untouched batted ball doesn't.

Assume F2 is the protected fielder. Then take it in sequence. BR is impeded by F3 - obstruction & delayed dead ball. BR interferes with F2. Dead ball.

That much is clear. How to sort this out is less clear, and depending on how everything went down, could go against either the offense or the defense (IMO).

8-5-B(1)c says the interference takes precedence.

However, if the obstruction caused the interference, then 10-1-L may give you the rule to not enforce the interference because it would be an advantage to the team that caused the situation.

Thanx Tom - That's the road I was trying to go down.

-Kono