|
Let's think about the rationale for a moment. If this rule did not exist, with a runner on third breaking home, I would teach every catcher in the world to make sure the batter is unable to complete a swing or bunt, unless bases are loaded. Reach out and hold the bat; run out in front of the plate, even. No reason to risk any successful squeeze or steal of home; go ahead and REALLY obstruct. No run scores, the obstruction penalty puts the batter on first, but other runners only advance if forced.
So, this rule is added to more appropriately award the assumed result of an unobstructed squeeze play; runner scores even if not forced on the obstruction. Everyone gets their just when the play is killed by the obstruction. Now, how do we rule if the "swing or attempted bunt" is successful, and the result of the play is a better result for the offense?
My answer is, the same as any other catcher obstruction ruling. Either it is canceled (8.1-D(1)), or it is an offensive coach option (8.1-D(2)). I read 8.1-D(4) solely to provide a steeper alternative to 8.1-D(3) when the intentional obstruction serves to cost the offense a run they are entitled to score. Even if it isn't crystal clear that (1) or (2) CAN be the result of this play, then 10.1.L makes it clear; when imposing one penalty versus another which applies, or even to ignore any penalty, you do not impose a penalty which favors the offending team. Applying 8.1-D(4) only, rather than considering (1) or (2) which might also apply, would favor the offending team.
Just my $.02.
|