Obstructed runner subsequently interferes - NFHS

[Little Ott]

NFHS rules.  R1, R2.  One out.  Hit toward F8.  R2 is obstructed rounding third.  The throw comes home.  R2 gets into a rundown as R1 heads toward third.  As F2 throws to third to get R1, R2 jumps up and down waving his arms to interfere with the throw.

What do ya got?

Does the interference negate R2's guaranteed award of home?

Thanks

[jimurrayalterego]

37 minutes ago, Little Ott said:

NFHS rules.  R1, R2.  One out.  Hit toward F8.  R2 is obstructed rounding third.  The throw comes home.  R2 gets into a rundown as R1 heads toward third.  As F2 throws to third to get R1, R2 jumps up and down waving his arms to interfere with the throw.

What do ya got?

Does the interference negate R2's guaranteed award of home?

Thanks

Not if this Interp applies broadly: 

2026

"SITUATION 10: As R3 attempts to score from third base, R3 is obstructed by the third baseman and decides to return to third base. As R3 nears third base, R3 slips and falls down and the third base coach, not thinking in the moment, reaches down and helps R3 to R3’s feet. RULING: While this is coach interference, the obstruction award must first be made before the penalty for the interference. Award R3 home. (3-2-2, 8-3-2, 8-4-2s)"

[NavyBlue]

I wouldn't call R2 out since he's getting home on the OBS, but if he actually does interfere with the throw and knocks it away into foul territory preventing a play on R1, then I might have R1 out for the interference.  

No penalty for an "attempt" to interfere but there could be in he's successful at interfering. 

Real time judgment call.

[The Man in Blue]

21 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Not if this Interp applies broadly: 

2026

"SITUATION 10: As R3 attempts to score from third base, R3 is obstructed by the third baseman and decides to return to third base. As R3 nears third base, R3 slips and falls down and the third base coach, not thinking in the moment, reaches down and helps R3 to R3’s feet. RULING: While this is coach interference, the obstruction award must first be made before the penalty for the interference. Award R3 home. (3-2-2, 8-3-2, 8-4-2s)"

In this case, the interference is not explicitly preventing a play from being made.  While I agree with this specific case play, I don't think I would apply the same standard to the OP where a play on a subsequent runner is being prevented.

Of course, we all know malicious contact supersedes obstruction.  I find two case plays in the 2018 Case Plays (haven't checked newer) where other illegal acts supersede obstruction: 8.4.2.s and 8.4.2.u.  These involve hurdling, leaping, and diving over a fielder who is obstructing, though.

8.3.2.h states we deal with the offenses in the order they occurred.  I have a fundamental issue with this logic though, as it seems to be giving an obstructed runner carte blanche to do anything once they have been obstructed.  

I see these as our options:

"Split the difference" -- award R3 home on the obstruction and consider him "scored" at the time of the obstruction.  Call R1 out for the "retired/scored runner interference."  Not a big fan of this option.

 

"Reward the interference" -- Taken in the order they occur, kill the play on the interference.  Award R3 home and leave R1 on 3rd base.  Totally disagree with this.

"Undo the action" -- completely negate the obstruction.  Award R3 home and place R1 where R1 would have been absent the obstruction.  I suspect this may be second base, NOT third base, as the ensuing rundown is what allowed him to take another base.  By rule, this makes the most sense.

"Punish the interference" -- This wins my support, but I'm not sure it is the correct answer.  Under this option, I see it as: obstruction (delayed award at the end of playing action), interference (immediate dead ball and out), since R3 was out by their own actions (not the same as tagged out) before the award could be made, the interference stands.  R1 goes back to second base (last base touched).

[MadMax]

Context? Amateurs, playing in/under NFHS 

@Little Ott, was this an actual witnessed play, or a projected supposition? I’m having difficulty understanding why, if R2 has been Obstructed, and is now in a rundown between 3B and Home, the F2 is now ignoring R2 and throwing past / over him so as to make a play on R1’s approach to 3B? 
Kids aren’t that baseball-savvy. 

While a rundown is the framework of a play, and not quite a play yet, I’m inclined to kill it (call Time) as soon as I’ve got F2 chasing R2 back towards 3B. With a base award pending, killing it prevents bad slides, contact, hard tags, or other shenanigans. Granted, an errant throw may even allow R1 to score, but how do we know that F2’s throw to 3B was to make a play on R1, not R2 (as part of the rundown)? 
Furthermore, why would an obstructed Runner begin conducting antics and histrionics – ie. attempting to interfere – so as to hinder any plays upon his fellow Runners when his own status is in limbo? Again, kids aren’t that savvy  

Pro baseball has the “benefit” of 2 types of OBS; by contrast, Fed only had “the one”. To make the award, we have to kill the play anyway, sooo… best to kill it based on how the rundown was unfolding, and thus, the attempt to INT is irrelevant and inconsequential. 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Of course, we all know malicious contact supersedes obstruction.  I find two case plays in the 2018 Case Plays (haven't checked newer) where other illegal acts supersede obstruction: 8.4.2.s and 8.4.2.u.  These involve hurdling, leaping, and diving over a fielder who is obstructing, though.

This is a little different - all those scenarios the illegal act by the runner occurs as a result of the OBS...it's basically an illegal response to OBS so they, in effect, occur and are ruled simultaneously, one negating the other.  The OP is something that occurs after OBS has been ruled, and the play has moved on.

Let me ask this - if a runner scores, and then he subsequently runs over to third base and punches F5 in the face, does his run get negated?

 

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

"Split the difference" -- award R3 home on the obstruction and consider him "scored" at the time of the obstruction.  Call R1 out for the "retired/scored runner interference."  Not a big fan of this option.

I'm not sure it's really splitting the difference - I think it's just enforcing the rules.

As I understand it, once OBS occurs the next base is "automatic", and in this case it would be home, so the score is "automatic" - ie. if another runner made the third out before the OBS award was completed, the run still scores.

Since the runner is now scored, it's now INT by a scored/retired runner, meaning R1 would be out.

If you don't think it's enough, eject the runner doing jumping jacks.

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

"Undo the action" -- completely negate the obstruction.  Award R3 home and place R1 where R1 would have been absent the obstruction.  I suspect this may be second base, NOT third base, as the ensuing rundown is what allowed him to take another base.  By rule, this makes the most sense.

nfw - R3 just got a freeroll in this scenario - he prevented an (attempt at an) out on another runner with the only consequence being pushing the runner back 90 feet.

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

"Punish the interference" -- This wins my support, but I'm not sure it is the correct answer.  Under this option, I see it as: obstruction (delayed award at the end of playing action), interference (immediate dead ball and out), since R3 was out by their own actions (not the same as tagged out) before the award could be made, the interference stands.  R1 goes back to second base (last base touched).

This would certainly be the result if he was awarded third instead of home.  The quirk is the OBS scores the runner, and you can't unscore a runner, with the exceptions you noted.

 

 

[BLWizzRanger]

40 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

This is a little different - all those scenarios the illegal act by the runner occurs as a result of the OBS...it's basically an illegal response to OBS so they, in effect, occur and are ruled simultaneously, one negating the other.  The OP is something that occurs after OBS has been ruled, and the play has moved on.

Let me ask this - if a runner scores, and then he subsequently runs over to third base and punches F5 in the face, does his run get negated?

 

I'm not sure it's really splitting the difference - I think it's just enforcing the rules.

As I understand it, once OBS occurs the next base is "automatic", and in this case it would be home, so the score is "automatic" - ie. if another runner made the third out before the OBS award was completed, the run still scores.

Since the runner is now scored, it's now INT by a scored/retired runner, meaning R1 would be out.

If you don't think it's enough, eject the runner doing jumping jacks.

nfw - R3 just got a freeroll in this scenario - he prevented an (attempt at an) out on another runner with the only consequence being pushing the runner back 90 feet.

This would certainly be the result if he was awarded third instead of home.  The quirk is the OBS scores the runner, and you can't unscore a runner, with the exceptions you noted.

 

 

Not directly to you BeerGuy, but the runner still has responsibilities to touch the base{s}.  He is awarded the base, but can still f-up and not score.  Thus, I don't think we can use the scored runner interference rules. The runner can still be at fault for any additional intentional interference.  This is a good unicorn play to make us think....

 

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Not directly to you BeerGuy, but the runner still has responsibilities to touch the base{s}.  He is awarded the base, but can still f-up and not score.  Thus, I don't think we can use the scored runner interference rules. The runner can still be at fault for any additional intentional interference.  This is a good unicorn play to make us think....

 

It would appear the simplest way to officiate this play is to score the runner on obstruction and penalize the interference the moment it occurs by returning runners to the last base occupied at the time of the interference.  If the interference prevented an out, enforce the out.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

It would appear the simplest way to officiate this play is to score the runner on obstruction and penalize the interference the moment it occurs by returning runners to the last base occupied at the time of the interference.  If the interference prevented an out, enforce the out.

Cardinal rule: if you have player or personnel interference during a play, you have an out.  (Just sending people back is not a sufficient penalty.)

General rule: the person interfering is out, unless they cannot be called out (meaning they are not a live runner).

I'm sticking with my final scenario above . . . calling the interfering/obstructed runner out.  @BLWizzRanger 's post cemented my opinion.

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm sticking with my final scenario above . . . calling the interfering/obstructed runner out.  @BLWizzRanger 's post cemented my opinion.

This might change your mind.

 

2009 Interps

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)

[MadMax]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Cardinal rule: if you have player or personnel interference during a play, you have an out.  (Just sending people back is not a sufficient penalty.)

General rule: the person interfering is out, unless they cannot be called out (meaning they are not a live runner).

I'm sticking with my final scenario above . . . calling the interfering/obstructed runner out.  @BLWizzRanger 's post cemented my opinion.

So you’d be wrong. 

I’m not being harsh with you to be argumentative; I’m being blunt, so as to point out the ridiculousness of applying a “cardinal rule” as some kind of universal altruism that applies in all cases, all plays. 

I still do not see the 500 lb canary in the room (CHIRP!) being addressed: 

1. If R2 (obstructed) is being run back to 3B, and R1 is advancing towards 3B from 2B, how do we know that F2’s throw to 3B is for the purposes of a play upon R1?? Is not the throw being made upon R2? How do we know otherwise?? 
2. Furthermore, an attempt to interfere (“jumping up and down, waving arms”) does not necessarily equal INT; sure, it is a symptom of it, or leads to it, but attempting it does not, in and of itself, mean that it caused INT to occur. 
    

Again, this is NFHS… they have a single type of OBS; I’m going to maintain that the play should be called dead once a play is made upon the obstructed R2, which, while caught in a rundown short of the awarded base, is. Granted, R2 still cannot cause malicious contact, and he has to touch bases in order and LTB, and all that… but if we adjudicate this more promptly, this situation doesn’t occur. 

@noumpere’s cited case play and ruling has validity, and yes, it says “interferes with catcher”, but I think we get too wrapped up with “R2 began acting like a clown so he has to be penalized!!”, and we lose the logical processing of the play. 

[The Man in Blue]

Let's keep chirping away at your premise here, @MadMax (love the conversation!) . . . You determine the play being made at third base is on R2 and not R1.  There is interference.  Now what are you doing?

I believe, at the very core of my existence, that acting like a clown should be penalized.  😋

That said, using the NFHS definition of interference, I have no problem making that call if this is egregious enough.

I'm glad @noumpere found that, as I was finding it very hard to believe there was nothing published  I'm OK with the way that case play is handed down, though I think the other argument holds water, too.