illegal slide v. Obstruction.

[White47]

Does an illegal slide (not malicious), superseded obstruction? or should it be called the other way? 

[Cav]

NFHS: rule on them in the order they occurred.  

[White47]

16 minutes ago, Cav said:

NFHS: rule on them in the order they occurred.  

I'm think more along the line of a play at the plate where catcher is blocking without the ball, but the runner come in with an illegal slide. In this case wouldn't they basically be occurring at the same time?  sorry for not being to descriptive. 

[maven]

Quote

2009 NFHS Baseball Interpretations

SITUATION 15: With runners at first and second and one out, the batter hits a bounding ball to left field. The runner from second 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 penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred. The runner advancing from second is awarded home. Following the enforcement for the obstruction, the interference is penalized. The runner from first is declared out and the batter-runner is returned to the base he legally occupied at the time of the interference. Had the interference been malicious in nature, the obstructed runner would be declared out in addition to the out on the runner from first. (2-22-1, 2-21-1a, 3-3-1n Penalty, 8-4-2e, 8-4-2g)

Assuming the illegal slide constitutes INT (per 8-4-2b, say), your play is just this one. FED wants the award granted because the OBS happened first, and apparently someone thinks that INT cannot "wipe out" an award. And because F2 is blocking the base before the illegal slide starts, I'm assimilating them.

I disagree with this ruling, on the ground that an award by definition is the right to run the bases legally without being retired, and "it is the responsibility of the runner to legally touch those bases" (2-2-1). Because R2 in the play above did not run the bases legally, he is subject to being called out. IMHO, INT, like MC and diving/hurdling, should supersede OBS.

Someone might quibble that the definition states that runners must "legally touch" their awarded base, not that they must run the bases legally. To me, such an interpretation is too narrow, and it would prove too much: it would also undermine the idea that any illegal action could supersede an awarded base.

[White47]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Assuming the illegal slide constitutes INT (per 8-4-2b, say), your play is just this one. FED wants the award granted because the OBS happened first, and apparently someone thinks that INT cannot "wipe out" an award. And because F2 is blocking the base before the illegal slide starts, I'm assimilating them.

I disagree with this ruling, on the ground that an award by definition is the right to run the bases legally without being retired, and "it is the responsibility of the runner to legally touch those bases" (2-2-1). Because R2 in the play above did not run the bases legally, he is subject to being called out. IMHO, INT, like MC and diving/hurdling, should supersede OBS.

Someone might quibble that the definition states that runners must "legally touch" their awarded base, not that they must run the bases legally. To me, such an interpretation is too narrow, and it would prove too much: it would also undermine the idea that any illegal action could supersede an awarded base.

not sure if you read my second post which had a little more detail.  does that change your mind? 

[Cav]

2 hours ago, White47 said:

I'm think more along the line of a play at the plate where catcher is blocking without the ball, but the runner come in with an illegal slide. In this case wouldn't they basically be occurring at the same time?  sorry for not being to descriptive. 

Nope, obstruction occurred before the illegal slide.

[White47]

7 minutes ago, Cav said:

Nope, obstruction occurred before the illegal slide.

So why don't we follow the same logic if a runner hurdles a defender that is obstructing? Or do we (maybe I'm wrong, somewhere I remember seeing a case play where if you hurdle a non prone defender you are out ) Just doesn't seem like the logic agrees here

[Cav]

2 minutes ago, White47 said:

So why don't we follow the same logic if a runner hurdles a defender that is obstructing? Just doesn't seem like the logic agrees here

I do because the rule book tells me to.  The defender is obstructing.  That occurred before the runner hurdles the defender.  The logic is exactly the same.  

[White47]

2 minutes ago, Cav said:

I do because the rule book tells me to.  The defender is obstructing.  That occurred before the runner hurdles the defender.  The logic is exactly the same.  

maybe I'm wrong, somewhere I think I remember seeing a case play where if you hurdle a non prone defender you are out even if they are obstructing.  I

[Cav]

3 minutes ago, White47 said:

maybe I'm wrong, somewhere I think I remember seeing a case play where if you hurdle a non prone defender you are out even if they are obstructing.  I

Perhaps you're thinking of CB 8-4-2A.  

[maven]

1 hour ago, White47 said:

maybe I'm wrong, somewhere I think I remember seeing a case play where if you hurdle a non prone defender you are out even if they are obstructing.  I

You are correct.

Quote

8.4.2 SITUATION S: F4 is in the baseline without the ball (a) on both knees or (b) bending over. R1 hurdles, jumps, leaps or dives over F4.

RULING: In (a) and (b), obstruction is ignored. If the runner hurdles, jumps or dives over the fielder, he shall be declared out. These illegal acts supersede obstruction.

INT is handled differently by interpretation from MC, diving, hurdling, or anything else. Because (in the OP) an illegal slide is INT by rule, it receives the different treatment, and we enforce both penalties.

2 hours ago, White47 said:

not sure if you read my second post which had a little more detail.  does that change your mind? 

No. The OBS happens first. If it didn't, then it never happened, as the INT would make the ball dead immediately. So if you rule that there are both, then the OBS happened first. Because we are directed to enforce penalties in the order of occurrence, we make the award, then penalize INT.