jk,
What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?
Quote:
|
Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire's judgment.
|
The reason I find Carl's interpretation suspect is that the only cases where one team member is held accountable/penalized for another team member's action is when a double play is possible.
While I concur that the FED takes a very dim view of MC, I do not believe it is FED's intent that the defense not be held to account in any way for their CO infraction - rather, they are only excused with regard to the offensive player who committed the MC.
If you look at the MC case plays (starting with 3.3.1V), ther is no case where other runners are "penalized" in a special way because of the MC of a different runner. (3.3.1Y has the BR out as well, but it is because of the FPSR violation rather than the MC).
I believe Carl "overreached" in his interpretation on this one.
JM