Precedence & Priority

[CecilOne]

Rules in general, answer for any set, preferably NCAA, NFHS
When a definition is more specific or less ambiguous than the applicable rule:

Does the definiton take precedence?

Does the rule take precedence if not consistent with the definition?

Is there a consistent interpretation of the above?


Yes, I know I have not included a specific rule, but I want basic thought, not a digression into a specific rule.

[NCASAUmp]

The definitions, in my opinion, are the building blocks upon which all rules are based. They're the pre-established concepts of what is or isn't handled by the rules. They save the author(s) much time and effort in duplicating what only needs to be established once.

In other words, "this is obstruction" and "this is interference."

The subsequent rules, therefor, refer back to those definitions and prescribe their associated penalties/results.

In other words, "when obstruction occurs..." and "when interference occurs..."

The subsequent rules are free to elaborate, clarify, expound upon, provide exemptions for, and give additional requirements for the enforcement of the violated definitions. They may or may not be reflected in the definitions.

I give precedence to what is explicitly stated in one over another.

[Dakota]

The rules apply the definitions to the playing action described in the rule.

[CecilOne]

The NCAA definition includes hindrance of a runner,
but the baserunning rule just says OBS will be called if the fielder blocks the base w/o the ball (and not about to receive).
Literal reading gives some ambiguity.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The NCAA definition includes hindrance of a runner,
but the baserunning rule just says OBS will be called if the fielder blocks the base w/o the ball (and not about to receive).
Literal reading gives some ambiguity.

I don't see the ambiguity.

[MD Longhorn]

Nor do I.

The definitions are just that - definitions of terms. Those terms are then used in the rules. The rules are meaningless without defining the terms, but the definitions are not rules - they are meaningless without being used in rules.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The NCAA definition includes hindrance of a runner,
but the baserunning rule just says OBS will be called if the fielder blocks the base w/o the ball (and not about to receive).
Literal reading gives some ambiguity.

Hindrance is a general term used to describe the act by the defense. A base doesn't necessarily have to be "blocked" as the term implies for interference. For instance, BR rounding 1st base with no desire or chance to go to 2nd base who bumps into F3 was hindered. However, she wasn't "blocked" from the base. Blocking means literally blocking a base as the runner arrives.

All of the terms used within a definition should apply to the rule even if the rule chooses to list one adjective to address a play.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I don't see the ambiguity.

Bear in mind, this is an "academic" discussion, not me questioning the rule.

The ambiguity is that the rule say OBS is called if the defender is blocking a base, not that the fielder blocking the base is OBS.
The "literal wording" leaves a gap between "obstruction is called" and being obstruction because it does not include hindrance or literally saying the blocking is OBS.
The wording could imply a connotation that the OBS is called for the sake of the penalty (where it says "obstruction is called") and not because it is OBS.

Yes, I know, semantics and all that, but an example for discussion to allow better understanding of other similar rule wording.

Also, it says base line not base path.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Bear in mind, this is an "academic" discussion, not me questioning the rule.

Yes, I know, semantics and all that, but an example for discussion to allow better understanding of other similar rule wording.

Also, it says base line not base path.

NCAA, like most of the codes, repeats certain things too many times throughout the book. When they do that, they run the risk of using alternative language or worse, not changing all areas when there is a rule change.

In my opinion, all of the rule books are written at too high of a reading and comprehension level and the authors don't properly take into account the average umpire.