Multiple Infractions

[Jessebleu]

OBR. Batter is interfered on the swing (by the catcher) but hits a slow roller in front of the plate . The batter- runner is now called for runner’s lane interference on the throw to first base.
What is the correct ruling?

[Mudisfun]

So what is the requirement for CI to be disregarded?

In your scenario did all runners, including the BR advance at least 1 base safely? No? Enforce the CI: BR gets first, all other runners advance a base if forced, or if they were stealing on the pitch. If not, runners return to TOP bases.

 

 

[ArchAngel72]

Is that not CI instead of BI

 

[ousafe]

27 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Is that not CI instead of BI

 

Yes. I took it as a typo.

[Mudisfun]

2 hours ago, ousafe said:

Yes. I took it as a typo.

Yes, I typoed it...

 

Fixed.

[SH0102]

9 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

In your scenario did all runners, including the BR advance at least 1 base safely? No?

If the batter was called for RLI, he did advance to first since he interfered with the play/catch at first base.

[The Man in Blue]

I understand why the question is being asked ... because generally interference supersedes obstruction on a play.  Although, I am not finding anything on that in the OBR book ... ??  EDIT: This is a softball rule.  See below for an NFHS baseball case play.

 

That said, maybe that is why it is called catcher's interference and not catcher's obstruction ... the CI still wins out.  😋

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 because generally interference supersedes obstruction on a play. 

Where do you get that?

[Senor Azul]

I think it comes from softball. High school softball has a rule that states when an obstructed runner goes on and commits interference that the interference takes precedence--i.e., the interference infraction supersedes the obstruction and the runner would be out and not awarded a base.

 

[Mudisfun]

14 hours ago, SH0102 said:

If the batter was called for RLI, he did advance to first since he interfered with the play/catch at first base.

The wording says advances safely (as in, cannot be put out before reaching first,) which RLI prevents. 

Change the scenario: CI and R2 advancing to 3rd on the hit ball is struck by the batted ball prior to it passing a fielder. You have interference, immediate dead ball, runner is out. BUT you have CI first, and the rule says all must advance at least 1 base safely or you enforce the CI. I'm going with order of operations... CI happened first, R2 is out on interference thus not all runners advanced safely. Kill the play and award based on CI and ignore the interference, unless it is Malicious Contact which supersedes pretty much everything in rule sets which have MC.

 

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

I think it comes from softball. High school softball has a rule that states when an obstructed runner goes on and commits interference that the interference takes precedence--i.e., the interference infraction supersedes the obstruction and the runner would be out and not awarded a base.

 

 

Thank you @Senor Azul.  Like I said, I couldn't find anything in OBR ... and I didn't look in the NFHS book last night.  It appears it is indeed a softball thing.  Softball also uses a slightly different penalty for obstruction, so it makes sense there.  (IMO, the softball penalty is more sensible, but that's another can of worms.)

The only NFHS case book I have digitally is 2018 ... and this seem to confirm @Mudisfun's "order of operations" methodology:

 

In the case play it is two different players, though.  I'm inclined to agree the first infraction wins out.  You likely wouldn't have had the second infraction without the first.