Re: Count the score
 

I can't find that reference (8-3 is Baserunning Awards). Maybe I'm missing something

I'm sorry. 3-3-1-n-penalty implies that the score counts if he commits malicious contact after touching home plate. At home the player who committed the malicious contact is merely ejected and the run scores.

Greg

I'm a little slow getting back to this and I have researched the Force Play Slide Rule 8-4-2b...

Yet Bob, I'm still at a loss. What allows me to take away a validly scored run. In general, I don't know of any other situation or rule that directs me to remove a scored run for actions after the score was made.

8-4-2b Any Runner is out when he: does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play does not slide in a direct line between the bases. Penalty: The runner is out, the ball is dead immediately, and the interference is called. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder's choice.

This definetely says the runner is out but how do I (by rule) declare a runner out after that runner has scored?

I think to negate the run is the right answer... and I would want to negate it even if it wasn't a force play... in my opinion that kind of activity is uncalled for at the High School or adult recreational level. Only in professional sports does the standard of malicious contact seem more acceptable.

But is there something that specifically says take away the run or do I just rely upon the case play and thereby interpret the rules we have discussed to also say take away the run?

Count the score
 

according to 3-3-1-n-penalty you would count the score at home.

Greg

Guys, Forget about the play taking place at home. This case situation is about the FPSL. Bases are loaded and we have the FPSL in effect at all bases. If this happened at 2nd how would you call it? The runner would be out and so would the batter-runner over at first. Why is this any different?

Now if the runner sliding into second, and maliciously crashes into the fielder there, he will also be ejected. Granted the case situation makes it sound like a run has scored but, that is not the case. No run scored to begin with, so your not taking anything away.

Don't get this confused with a runner trying to score at home, that tags the plate and then, maliciously crashes into the catcher.

Re: Count the score
 

Yes --if it were just malicious contact (or any other interference).

The FPSR carrries an extra penalty -- no run can score, all runners return to TOP. Note that on other interference in FED, runners retrun to TOI -- so any run that has scored (whether by the player committing interference or not) counts.

This is all very interesting. It is possible to score, and then create malicious contact, and not be called out for the malicious contact. But the runner would be ejected. But on the play in question:

On a force play, the runner has an obligation to legally slide up to but not beyond a base, or avoid the play entirely. R1 did neither, so he is out, and the double play is enforced. Since he made malicious contact he is ejected. Since the double play was enforced no runs score. Even if there were no outs, R1 and B1 are out, double play.

On the second subject:

In Fed, a catcher can not block the plate without the ball. If he does, obstruction, award the runner home. If the catcher has to go up the 3rd base line to receive the throw the runner should avoid him or he might be ruled to interfere with the catcher's ability to catch the incoming ball. If they should contact then the umpire makes big bucks to decide - obsruction, or interference, or incidental contact. Best thing for coaches is to tell the runners to avoid the catchers who are "up the line" and let the umpires rule obstruction. It is also the safest thing to coach, you don't want runners running into catchers. If the ball touches the catcher's mitt a millisecond before the runner makes contact, and the catcher does not hold the ball, I have nothing, unless the contact was malicious.

So if the run doesn't score does someone want to explain what 3-3-1-n-penalty is trying to say? It seems to me that this rule says that you count the score if malicious contact occurs after the runner has scored.

The run does not score, in this case, because the question started with bases loaded, and the runner violated the force play slide rule. A runner can not slide past the base and make contact with a fielder to break up a double play. This applies to home also. Since the runner made contact with the catcher past the base, he is out for FPSR violation, the runner going to first is out also. Now if this had happened when bases were not loaded the run would count, there would be no FPSR violation, therefore no out on the runner from 3rd, run scores, and he is ejected for malicious contact. That is what 3-3-1n penalty says.

Somewhere there's a statement to the effect that "ruleas and cases assume no other complications."

So, 3-3-1n says what you say it says -- but it assumes that malicious contact is the only thing )of import) that happens on the play.

In the play at hand, we have not only malicious contact but also a FPSR violation. THe FPSR violation "supercedes" the "run socres" portion of teh malicious contact rule that you've been hanging your hat on.

Thanks Bob and DJ. I now have a much better understanding of this case play and could explain why it is called this way. - Runner is going beyond the base in a force play situation and interfering. Because it is a force play situation, no runs can score, all return to positions at time of pitch. If it were not a force play situation, then deadball at time of interference and therefore a run may have already scored before the interference occurred and it would stand.

DJ, I think interference by a runner, on a throw has got to be intentional, otherwise it is just a bad throw. A catcher moving up the line and who collides with a runner as a throw arrives is incidental - bad throw, play on.

Granted, I would have to see the play, but if the runner coming from 3rd contacts the catcher up the line, while he is receiving the ball I could see an interference ruling even if contact was unintentional. Interference is not measured by intent. If the runner has room to avoid, he should.

Reference, please.

Fed 8-4-2g "INTENTIONALLY interferes with a throw or thrwon ball ..."

OBR 7.08(b) "He INTENTIONALLY interferes with a thrown ball"

If the runner moves into the fielder, you'd (probably) have intent. Otherwise, it's just a train wreck.

Your first sentence is not true in FED (although true in NCAA and LL). If the catcher is in the imminent act of making a play on the ball he will not be called for obstruction. What is imminent? Umpire judgment.

Also, if a catcher is pulled up the line and there is a collision, I would never have interference unless the runner's actions were intentional. Collisions happen and the catcher has no more right to receive a bad throw than the runner has to keep on heading to the plate.

For some reason, the "catcher up the line" always causes problems. The catcher up the line in the act of fielding a ball is awarded the same collision protection as anyone else. If the runner can avoid contact, he must. If the fielder has the ball, he must slide or try to avoid contact. Coaches will always say, "What can he do? He can't slide from there" as if this gives the runner license to hit the catcher. However, if the catcher has the ball up the line, then the runner can try to avoid a tag or give himself up.