Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
jk,
What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?
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
|
JM,
I am not finding your quote in the reference you cited, but that's just me I guess.
My first response to you is that MC is an 'ejectable' offense to coin a phrase, but OBS by F2 is not.
Secondly, if the ruling you are using says you can place the runner based on the judgment of the umpire, and you can "look in the mirror" after the game and say you got the call right, go for it.
*****
To our good friend and chess player Carl,
I must disagree with you on using the idea the pitch is a dead ball on MC to keep the BR at the plate. This is by definition not an illegal pitch, the pitcher did nothing wrong on the play! I like the thinking, but twisting the rules into a pretzel doesn't work for me.