Someone please explain this to me.

[CoogansBluff]

The PU then calls Catcher Interference and gives the two options.
First scoring runner (runner originally on 3rd) scores and the second runner is out or we can put all the runner back on base (bases loaded) and continue batting but the score is removed.

I could not understand why the first run would not count if it happened before the catcher interference either way? Why is the second runner not given home plate making 2 runs?

Someone please explain if this was the correct ruling or did the umpire make a huge mistake.

What I'm understanding is that the umpire has ruled that the catcher obstructed the batter's swing, but not the base runner, who was out.

I'm no umpire, but here is my understanding of the rule --

If the batter reaches first safely and all runners advance at least one base, then the play stands.

If the batter is out at first, then the offensive team is given the option: Award the batter first base (just like a hit by pitch, runners do not advance), or let the play stand.

So I'm guessing that the umpire forgot the batter must be out at first in order to give the offensive team any options.

 

[Umpire]

When catcher's obstruction occurs, if all runners, including the batter-runner, safely advance one base, then the catcher's obstruction is canceled and there is no option given. If all runners, including the batter-runner, do not safely advance one base, then the offensive coach has the option to choose between: a) taking the result (the ENTIRE result) of the play; or b) the batter-runner is awarded 1st base and all runners who are FORCED to advance will advance one base.

 

[FrozenRope]

So I am assuming the obstruction was on the hitter? not the fact that the catcher blocked the plate without the ball?

In the event there was interference with the hitter...I always thought the rule states that if the batter safely reaches first base and all runners advance at least one base, the obstruction is no longer in play, and cannot be enforced. There is no option. Not sure what governing body this tournament was played under, but maybe there are different rulings.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Timothy, I will check back with our HC and ask if that could have been the case. I never heard anything said about the catcher interfering in the batters swing howver that would make more since to how this was handled. I do know that the PU specifically stated Interference and not Obstruction.

The PU either mixed up terms or used baseball terminology where it is called catcher's interference when the catcher interferes with the batter's swing. As Comp posted, softball has standardized their terminology so all acts by the defense are called obstruction.

Was it a RH or LH batter? Seems unlikely a RH batter would hit a ball to 3B if their swing was obstructed.

 

[CoachBroker]

OK, I did get clarification from the coach today that it was in fact catcher interference with the batter and not the runner. Thank you all for your help on making this one make since. I learned quite a bit on this and I appreciate everyone's thoughts on it.
I will obviously do some more studying to make sure the ruling was correct.
SoCal Dad, it was a right handed batter. I did not see the contact and was watching the batter at the time of the pitch. Obviously the PU has a better view of it than I did.

 

[Comp]

Just for clarification it is catchers obstruction.

The umpire still blew the application of the rule, there was nothing to call in the situation you described. Batter/runner reached 1st safely and all runners advanced at least 1 base safely.

 

[Umpire]

Though I have never seen it in 7000+ games umpired or observed, it is possible to have both catcher's obstruction (as specifically defined and only applicable to the batter) and defensive obstruction by the catcher with the runner at the plate.

Let's say that the runner would have scored at there not been obstruction on the runner at home plate. We already know that the "catcher's obstruction" is canceled because the batter and all runners advanced one base; so, no option is offered. However, once the obstructed runner is tagged out, the ball is dead and the runner is awarded the base the umpire believes would have reached had there been no obstruction. So, in this case, if the umpire believes the obstruction prevented the runner from scoring, the umpire should still award the runner home plate. Other runners would be awarded whatever bases the umpires believe would have reached had the play not been killed.

 

[FPump]

Though I have never seen it in 7000+ games umpired or observed, it is possible to have both catcher's obstruction (as specifically defined and only applicable to the batter) and defensive obstruction by the catcher with the runner at the plate.

Let's say that the runner would have scored at there not been obstruction on the runner at home plate. We already know that the "catcher's obstruction" is canceled because the batter and all runners advanced one base; so, no option is offered. However, once the obstructed runner is tagged out, the ball is dead and the runner is awarded the base the umpire believes would have reached had there been no obstruction. So, in this case, if the umpire believes the obstruction prevented the runner from scoring, the umpire should still award the runner home plate. Other runners would be awarded whatever bases the umpires believe would have reached had the play not been killed.

Possible. I would be one heck of a play, followed by some serious rules explanation to the respective coaches.

Nice job describing the play and the outcome of the two obstructions. The only part you missed on was the bolded last sentence in your post.
OBS calls by umpires are (by rule) delayed dead balls. Umpires will extend their left arm (with a closed fist) horizontally signaling they have an OBS call and let the play continue.
So in the case your presented, PU would give the OBS signal on the catcher's obstruction on the batter, then signal OBS again when the catcher obstructed the runner at HP. But, remember it's a DDB call, PU is not going to call Time killing the play until the other runners have reached their bases and there is no further action.
At this point, the PU will administer the ruling on both of the OBS calls.

 

[Umpire]

Possible. I would be one heck of a play, followed by some serious rules explanation to the respective coaches.

Nice job describing the play and the outcome of the two obstructions. The only part you missed on was the bolded last sentence in your post.
OBS calls by umpires are (by rule) delayed dead balls. Umpires will extend their left arm (with a closed fist) horizontally signaling they have an OBS call and let the play continue.
So in the case your presented, PU would give the OBS signal on the catcher's obstruction on the batter, then signal OBS again when the catcher obstructed the runner at HP. But, remember it's a DDB call, PU is not going to call Time killing the play until the other runners have reached their bases and there is no further action.
At this point, the PU will administer the ruling on both of the OBS calls.

Remember, obstruction is a delayed dead ball initially. However, once the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching the base she would have reached had the obstruction not occurred, the ball then becomes dead immediately. That is so the awards could be made without subsequent plays occurring. Yes, it is delayed dead initially, but it's dead when the runner is tagged out.

The proper mechanic once she's tagged is, "Dead ball, that's obstruction! The runner is awarded __ base." Then place the other runners.

 

[sftblldad7]

As I have a DD that catches, Ask 20 umpires and get 20 answers. For ASA rules the fielder at any base CAN NOT block more than 75% of the base. The catcher can not be established in front (blocking the plate) of the plate before the ball is thrown or you get the obstruction call. Once the throw is in the air the catcher may go to the ball if contact is made it is call incidental contact ( no call ). Once the catcher has the ball than everything is fare game. With that being said good luck trying to find two umpires to make the same call.