Malicious Contact Rule Help

[NickG]

Not infrequently, malicious contact occurs in conjunction with obstruction. For example, the catcher is four or five feet up the line without the ball and the the runner collides with him barreling for home.

Now, according to this discussion, the runner is out/ejected and the run does not score. However, what about the obstruction on the part of the catcher? Why is the obstruction infraction not punished also?

Why, then, would it not be malicious contact, but awarded home on the obstruction, THEN ejected for the malicious contact?

[UmpJM]

NickG,

FED has decided that they really want to discourage malicious contact.

Hence, in the situation you describe, the malicious contact "trumps" the obstruction, and the obstruction is ignored - by rule.

JM

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by NickG

Why, then, would it not be malicious contact, but awarded home on the obstruction, THEN ejected for the malicious contact?

If i'm not mistaken, this is the NCAA interp.

FED, by rule, MC superscedes obstruction always.


ps- the new FED defensive MC rule is pretty darn stupid IMO

[DG]

Originally Posted by bossman72

If i'm not mistaken, this is the NCAA interp.

ps- the new FED defensive MC rule is pretty darn stupid IMO

That is correct for NCAA, runner would be awarded the base on obstruction and then ejected.

What's stupid about a defensive player creating MC and being ejected for it?