Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
I don't think it's Carl, I think it was Rumble back in 1988. I'll alert Carl to this thread in case he wants to respond.
|
Rich,
After you referenced it, I checked the BRD write-up.
I'm pretty sure that Carl's reference was to a Rumble ruling that "malicious contact supersedes obstruction" prior to that text being incorporated into the text of rule 8-4-2e(1).
I am fairly certain that the interpretation Carl offers, that the R3's malicious contact of F2 completely negates ALL awards resulting from the (catcher's) obstruction of the batter, is his own.
I honestly do not believe that is the intent of the FED rule.
I find bob jenkins' cite of 9.1.1M(b) more compelling - the "maliciously contacting" runner is deprived of his award, but the other runners are not. Of course, there isn't any "obstruction' in that play, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
While FED clearly frowns on malicious contact (as jkumpire observed), I believe they also frown on Catcher's Obstruction, from both a safety and a
balance of play perspective, and I doubt their intent is to completely absolve the defense from the penalty for their infraction with regard to offensive players not involved in the malicious contact.
I'll be interested to hear Carl's response. (Should he so deign.)
JM