OBS, INT, or Both?

[CricketChapman]

This is from a USSSA (Mod. OBR) 10U tournament game from last year.  I did not witness the play, but here is the best description I can give:

Bot 6, R3, 2 outs, score is tied.

F2 tries to pick off R3 after a pitch and throws down to F5; R3 dives back toward third.  The ball hits F5's glove and rolls toward the dugout (15-20 feet away).  As R3 stands and turns to run home, he collides with F1, who is chasing after the ball.  PU announces and signals "Obstruction."

Immediately, R3 pushes F1 aside (a clear push, but F1 does not fall) and continues toward home; BU calls "Interference" and calls "Time."  R3 continues home and "scores" without a throw; both dugouts go ballistic.  VT HC wants the runner called out; HT HC thinks they have won the game.

After a discussion, and then a conference with the TD, R3 is awarded home and the game is over.

 

So...what do you have?  I am really conflicted.  OBS Type B is certainly evident here; since "Time" was called for INT, R3 never technically reached HP, and an award is the only way he could score.

But if R3 is deemed to have intentionally interfered, should he not be out?  Or since the obstruction iniated the whole incident, does the award take precedent?

I am inclined to award R3 home.

[JaxRolo]

Could the pushing of R3 be considered malicious contact, if so it takes precedence.

If it is not mc then TD got it right

[Thunderheads]

Could the pushing of R3 be considered malicious contact, if so it takes precedence.

If it is not mc then TD got it right

So you're saying the OBS stands regardless of the non-MC INT?

[JaxRolo]

Apparently it all happen at one time. What I see is r3 getting obstructed and pushing off so he can keep ruining. So yes I have obs not int

[Thunderheads]

Apparently it all happen at one time. What I see is r3 getting obstructed and pushing off so he can keep ruining. So yes I have obs not int

There it is, .... that's what I saw in head too, and that's why I asked the question the way I did ........  thanks

[renegadewolf]

In my mind if the ball is far enough away for the ump to call obs. on the fielder, you can't possibly have int. on the runner as the fielder is not attempting to make a play.  It is also completely understandable for the runner to try to remove the fielder from their path, and not always in the most caring and compassionate manner as they are kind of busy concentrating on scoring a run. This is all assuming that the shove was not MC.  That is a whole new can of worms

[Jocko]

OBS

[noumpere]

So there were conflicitng calls?  Isnt there an OBR rule that says "if there are conflicitng calls the UIC will decide which was most likely correct and go with that one"?  We usually think of this as two umpires covering one base on a tag play but it applies here.

 

Based on the description the obstruction call was the correct one.

[Jocko]

Sounded like the same ump made both calls. Can't conflict yourself.

[Rich Ives]

AND  -  there is no MC rule in OBR so forget that.  You can call UC and eject after the play but that's the extent.

[CricketChapman]

Yes, there were conflicting calls; PU calls OBS, BU calls INT.

When I discussed the play with both umpires, both stated R3 pushed F1 so that he would get out of his way - there was no malicious intent.

I took Renegadwolf's position and told them that I would've awarded R3 home as well.

[Jocko]

AND  -  there is no MC rule in OBR so forget that.  You can call UC and eject after the play but that's the extent.

does MC differ from UC in that UC the play stands?

[Jocko]

Sounded like the same ump made both calls. Can't conflict yourself.

Sorry, reread the OP and saw my mistake. Disregard my brain fart

[CricketChapman]

So there were conflicitng calls?  Isnt there an OBR rule that says "if there are conflicitng calls the UIC will decide which was most likely correct and go with that one"?  We usually think of this as two umpires covering one base on a tag play but it applies here.

 

Based on the description the obstruction call was the correct one.

Ah...Good catch.  9.04© is the rule.  In this case, that means OBS should've been the call.

[bam]

Could the pushing of R3 be considered malicious contact, if so it takes precedence.

If it is not mc then TD got it right

 

This is OBR, where there is no MC - it says "modified" so MC may be there. 

[Rich Ives]

AND  -  there is no MC rule in OBR so forget that.  You can call UC and eject after the play but that's the extent.

does MC differ from UC in that UC the play stands?

 

Yes.  Absent a MC rule there is no basis for calling an out.

[VolUmp]

One late thought ... it sounds like the two calls were called in sequence, not at the same time, and since the moment OBS was called by the PU, that runner must, by rule, be awarded home (unless he abandons or unless there is some MC inserted ruling which is called), the INT call is ignored.  The "Fair/Foul" or "Out/Safe" calls have to be decided by the PU.  (And "best 'o luck" trying to turn a foul ball back into a fair ball ...)