OBS and INT, same runner

[maven]

Here's a ruling that was sent to me recently by an authoritative source (no names mentioned to protect...well, probably me). Thoughts?
 

Quote

 

SITUATION: R1, R2, one out, the batter singles to left field.  R2 touches third and is obstructed advancing to home.  The obstructed runner then interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on the runner from first advancing to third base.

RULING: The violations are enforced in the order in which they occurred.  Since the obstruction was first, we will award R2 home, scoring him.  And since R2 has now scored, we cannot call him out for his interference.  So, R1 is called out.

 

 

[Tksjewelry]

Im assuming they see it as similar to (after the obstruction is enforced) a play if you had R2 with R1 hot on his heels, R2 scores then interferes with the catcher making a play on R1. I guess I can see how they come about it but that is one play I don't want to have to explain to daddy coaches, like ever.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Here's a ruling that was sent to me recently by an authoritative source (no names mentioned to protect...well, probably me). Thoughts?
 

 

What did R2 do that drew the INT decision? Given the normal positioning of players  (R2 running foul territory - F2 in fair territory - throw from F2 to 3B) and the geometry I have a hard time imagining how this would happen. In fact why would F2 throw to 3B with R2 bearing down on him? If R2 was already past F2 how could he interfere?

[ricka56]

TWP .... What rule/interp could be cited to come up with that ruling... I have no idea. It sounds more like an application of 10-2-3g (OBR 8.01(c)). And since the UIC is authorized to " make final decisions on points not covered by the rules", my remedy might be different from your anonymous authoritative source. 

[maven]

Turns out it's not some random guy's TWP. It's as authoritative as can be, because it is NFHS 2009 Baseball Interpretations Situation 15.

Allow me to rephrase my question: in one obvious sense — as genuinely authoritative — this ruling is correct. But does it seem to you a correct application of the OBS and INT rules? In particular, what does the word 'award' mean to you?

[ricka56]

I stand corrected. Fed 8-4-2g does get an out on a runner if his out is prevented by the illegal action (intentional interference) of another. In OBR the offender would be out. 

I think that the only infraction that doesn't allow the completion of a base award in Fed is MC. That 2009 interp 15 supports that contention.  

[Rich Ives]

I still can't envision this happening.

[ALStripes17]

I still can't envision this happening.

Throw home causes the catcher to end up 3BLX (runner safe coming through the plate)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

5 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Throw home causes the catcher to end up 3BLX (runner safe coming through the plate)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Really (I mean really) stupid catcher then. Stepped in front of the train. Don't blame the train. 

[ALStripes17]

Really (I mean really) stupid catcher then. Stepped in front of the train. Don't blame the train. 

When the throw ends up taking him towards the backstop?

He comes off the plate 3BLX to catch a throw and immediately goes to make a throw to another base... How is that getting in front of the train? He didn't go up the baseline....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Tksjewelry]

Turns out it's not some random guy's TWP. It's as authoritative as can be, because it is NFHS 2009 Baseball Interpretations Situation 15.

Allow me to rephrase my question: in one obvious sense — as genuinely authoritative — this ruling is correct. But does it seem to you a correct application of the OBS and INT rules? In particular, what does the word 'award' mean to you?

Tell me if I'm getting this application wrong:

From the moment of obstruction, R2 is protected to the award base. In this situation it would be home. So, since he's technically scored he can't be called out. Now he's just a teammate on the field, similar to an on deck or a coach. Since he's "done with play" and interferes, the runner incurres the penalty. If R2 had already been put out and then interferes, it would be the same, runner is out. The technicality come in with the runner being "protected", imo.

Is that totally off?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[maven]

1 minute ago, Tksjewelry said:

Tell me if I'm getting this application wrong:

From the moment of obstruction, R2 is protected to the award base. In this situation it would be home. So, since he's technically scored he can't be called out. Now he's just a teammate on the field, similar to an on deck or a coach. Since he's "done with play" and interferes, the runner incurres the penalty. If R2 had already been put out and then interferes, it would be the same, runner is out. The technicality come in with the runner being "protected", imo.

Is that totally off?

Hard to say what the thinking behind the ruling is, but yours seems plausible.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

When the throw ends up taking him towards the backstop?

He comes off the plate 3BLX to catch a throw and immediately goes to make a throw to another base... How is that getting in front of the train? He didn't go up the baseline....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Why is he behind the plate? MAJOR faux pas. It's not like the throw suddenly took a turn. It was a long throw from F9, not a short rocket from a drawn-in iinfielder. He know where it was headed. Position properly. Get it before it gets to the plate/baseline. Catching 101.

 

Piazza - WS - behind the baseline. Throw hits Posada (who is on the way to the plate) and deflects away because the HOF catcher is too stupid to be in the right place. . Mets lose.  

 

I'm a Yankees fan. Loved it!

[ALStripes17]

Why is he behind the plate? MAJOR faux pas. It's not like the throw suddenly took a turn. It was a long throw from F9, not a short rocket from a drawn-in iinfielder. He know where it was headed. Position properly. Get it before it gets to the plate/baseline. Catching 101.

 

Piazza - WS - behind the baseline. Throw hits Posada (who is on the way to the plate) and deflects away because the HOF catcher is too stupid to be in the right place. . Mets lose.  

 

I'm a Yankees fan. Loved it!

If 10% of the HS catcher's in Alabama know how to move up to cutoff a throw, then I would be surprised... Weirder things have forced great catchers into even weirder situations. Can't expect them to stay put and take a long hop I guess... Smh

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[jpperez14]

@maven the only thing I could think of a play happening like your scenerio is the video below. Just say you had OBS by F5. It doesn't say a play was being made on R2 just the catcher attempt to retire R1 at 3rd? Count the run, rule R1 out for INT by a offensive team member, since he is no longer a runner after touching home, and place BR where he was at TOI? 

Https://youtu.be/jdClGoeDVjE

[goody14]

This play is in the BRD.

Quote

Play 40-36: R1, R2, B1 singles. R2 is obstructed after he has rounded third. He
then interferes with the catcher’ s attempt to play on R1 at third. Ruling: At all
levels: R2 is awarded home. R1 is out because of the interference. BR returns TOI.
But in FED and NCAA, if the contact between R2 and F2 was malicious / flagrant,
then, rather than receiving home, R2 would be out and ejected.

As you can see Carl has it the same at all levels. I have read it before and frankly did not fully get it.

My (turns out wrong) thinking was that if a runner has to run the bases correctly when awarded bases (as in touch them all) he would also be responsible to not commit any infractions while running out awarded bases.

In this play, he interfered...usually the interferer is out, so R2 would be out. This is not the case.

Another BRD play:

Quote

Play 41-36: R1, R3. R3 is trapped in a rundown and obstructed by the pitcher as he
tries for the plate. (Type 2) He sees F2 about to play on R1, heading for second, and
knocks the ball out of the catcher’s hand. R1 makes it safely to third. Ruling: (status
of the ball): In FED, the ball is delayed dead on the obstruction but immediately dead
on the interference. In NCAA / OBR, the ball is immediately dead on the obstruction,
so the interference never happened. Ruling (scope of the award): In FED, R3 scores
on the obstruction; R1 is out. In FED / NCAA, if the interference was malicious, R3
would also be out and ejected. In NCAA / OBR, R3 scores on the obstruction. 

Same concept...obstruction means he gets home and so the interference is technically by someone "who has already scored" like @Tksjewelry said.

[noumpere]

I knew maven's play was (at least mostly; and , as it turns out, entirely) from a FED case play.  I personally dislike the ruling.  Even though he's obstructed, the runner still needs to run legally (unless the OBS is the proximate cause of the infraction).  So, while an obstructed runner can't be PUT OUT (by the defense) until his awarded base, he sure can be DECLARED out (by the umpire).  That's how I would have the rule if I were the king.  (and, I think there might even be (or was) some case play that uses similar logic)

[maven]

3 hours ago, goody14 said:

Same concept...obstruction means he gets home and so the interference is technically by someone "who has already scored" like @Tksjewelry said.

Again, I agree that this seems to be the reasoning behind these rulings. I just think that's flawed.

If the obstructed runner misses HP, he is liable to be out on appeal. We could not conceivably call another runner out for that infraction.

If the obstructed runner abandoned before touching HP, he would be out for abandonment. Again, it's inconceivable to call someone else out for that infraction.

For FED at least, MC supersedes OBS: yet another way that the award could be nullified.

He has NOT already scored, and should be held responsible for his own INT.

Of course, by interpretation I am wrong. Lah me.

[goody14]

I agree. As stated in my message...I never fully understood this case play.

 

[jpperez14]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

I knew maven's play was (at least mostly; and , as it turns out, entirely) from a FED case play.  I personally dislike the ruling.  Even though he's obstructed, the runner still needs to run legally (unless the OBS is the proximate cause of the infraction).  So, while an obstructed runner can't be PUT OUT (by the defense) until his awarded base, he sure can be DECLARED out (by the umpire).  That's how I would have the rule if I were the king.  (and, I think there might even be (or was) some case play that uses similar logic)

If you have bases loaded, 1 outs. Ground ball to F3 who bobbles then throws home, pulls F2 off the bag towards 3BLX and R3 slides in safely, but at the end of R3 slide, his left arm ends up around F2's leg and pulls him down by accident (No attempt to try to interfere with F2). What do you have?

[maven]

3 minutes ago, jpperez14 said:

If you have bases loaded, 1 outs. Ground ball to F3 who bobbles then throws home, pulls F2 off the bag towards 3BLX and R3 slides in safely, but at the end of R3 slide, his left arm ends up around F2's leg and pulls him down by accident (No attempt to try to interfere with F2). What do you have?

I think you'd still have no score here.

Although R3 would be nominally awarded home (and scored, according to the FED case play from 2009), he has still committed a FPSR violation. No matter whom we call out for that violation (R3 or, if he scores, R2), we will also call the BR out. Since the BR made the third out before legally touching 1B, no runs can score.

THAT rule isn't up for grabs.

[jpperez14]

2 hours ago, maven said:

I think you'd still have no score here.

Although R3 would be nominally awarded home (and scored, according to the FED case play from 2009), he has still committed a FPSR violation. No matter whom we call out for that violation (R3 or, if he scores, R2), we will also call the BR out. Since the BR made the third out before legally touching 1B, no runs can score.

THAT rule isn't up for grabs.

Ahh. I didn't pay attention when I wrote it down about BR being the 3rd out. Would you have the same if there were no outs? Call FPSR, call R3 out and BR out and put R2 and R1 back to TOP?

The scenario you originally posted I am still trying to picture in my head on how you could call OBS, INT, and not allow a run. The only was I see you not allowing the run is if its MC, its in front of the plate, and not after a runner has already scored in FED. In NCAA, so I've been told (I haven't read much into the NCAA rules), if you have OBS, INT and/or MC, you enforce the OBS scoring the run, then eject for MC.

[maven]

Following the ruling in 8.4.2W, where an FPSR violation by R3 after actually scoring "unscores" the run, I would "unscore" R3's run for an FPSR violation after an OBS award as well.

Quote

8.4.2 SITUATION W: The bases are loaded with (a), less than two outs, or (b), two outs. B4 hits a ground ball to F4, who throws to F2 for the force out at home. The throw pulls F2 off home plate several steps toward the first-base side. R1, seeing F2 ready to make a play on B4 at first base, touches home plate and maliciously crashes into F2.

RULING: (a) Since this is a force-play situation, R1 and B4 are declared out and no one scores. R1 will be ejected from the game. In (b), R1 will be declared out and ejected for the contact, and no run will score.