Catcher's Obstruction with Malicious Contact - Did we get it right?

[dash_riprock]

In order for the obstruction to be ignored, the BR must reach 1st and all other runners must advance at least one base.

[johnnyg08]

I agree bossman, I have a hard time calling a willfull and deliberate interference...because the CI gives the offense the option in this case to accept the play or the runner at 1B...the MC had no effect on the double play because had the CI not occurred, the MC would've come into play...Yep, I'm on Mbyron's ruling here...but I like talking about this situation...it's not about who's right/wrong on here necessarily...we need to get to a situation where we all get this right on the field...keep 'em coming guys...although I think we have the correct sitch on here...

[johnnyg08]

true but technically here we have catcher's interference...which, I think portions of the OBS rule don't apply to the catcher's interference rule...

[DG]

I think the catcher obstruction happened first, so BR is awarded 1B, no chance for a DP involving BR. Interference kills the play and removes the force, R1 is out and ejected, runners return, no run scores. 2 outs, 1 player tossed, bases still loaded.

Offense is not going to take result of the play instead of catcher obstruction, because the result should be a DP for maliciously interfering with a DP attempt.

Just a side note, I don't think I would have a discussion with my partner 15-20 feet from 2 coaches who are head to head in such a volatile situation. They must each go their own dugout or very near it and then my partner and I will discuss.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Sitch: (NFHS) Bases loaded, 1 out. B/R obstructed by the catcher as he hits a ground ball to F4. I (PU) give delayed dead ball sign and watch the play develop. F4 opts to tag R1 and then throw to first for the DP. However, R1 brings his arms up and extends...obvious malicious contact call, made immediately by my partner. Kills the play, declares the interference and gets the third out at first on the B/R, subsequently declared the malicious contact, ejects R1.

B/R has the right to 1B. R1 is out regardless the majorinfraction only halts the play.

What we determined was this: Working under the assumption

Why assume anything in a coaching decision?

[scarolinablue]

After some discussion with our association board, our conclusion sounds a lot like the consensus I'm seeing here (I think):

B/R awarded 1B, R1 declared out as a result of the MC, R2 and R3 should have stayed put without advance due to R1 not reaching 2B. So, we erred in allowing R2 and R3 to advance. The small consolation prize is that the next two batters got hits to score 3 runs, so the original award of a run ultimately didn't factor in the outcome. Like I said though, small consolation...I'd obviously rather had gotten it right the first time. Thanks for the discussion...one of the strangest sitches I've had in a while.

Of course, last night, got to apply the called strike for the batter inexplicably walking out of the batters box without requesting time...the pitch was low and a foot outside, but became strike three anyway!

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Sitch: (NFHS) Bases loaded, 1 out. B/R obstructed by the catcher as he hits a ground ball to F4. I (PU) give delayed dead ball sign and watch the play develop. F4 opts to tag R1 and then throw to first for the DP. However, R1 brings his arms up and extends...obvious malicious contact call, made immediately by my partner. Kills the play, declares the interference and gets the third out at first on the B/R, subsequently declared the malicious contact, ejects R1.

We have CO therefore,

The first question is:

Did all runners including the BR advance 1 base.

Answer NO:

Therefore, the first thing you need to do is enforce the CO infraction.

Let's forget about the MC for a minute. In the OP, not everyone advanced one base so if there was no MC, you would award all runners including the BR one base. We would be left with bases juiced 1 out.

However, in the OP R1 maliciously contacted F4 so R1 is out.

Final Result. R3 scores, R2 to third, R1 declared out because of MC and the BR to first base - 2 outs.

Pete Booth

[dash_riprock]

Don't see how you can award bases to R2 & R3. If they aren't awarded bases under the CO, how can they be awarded them with INT?

[PeteBooth]

The FIRST thing you do is enforce the CO penalty which means all runners move up a base. Therefore, ALL runners would originally advance on the CO penalty.

Now you have MC on a DIFFERENT runner so you enforce the MC penalty against that runner meaning R1.

You enforce the penalties in the order they occurred unless the SAME runner was called for MC which would SUPERCEDE the original call but that is not the case in the OP.

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

don't you give them a base on CI, if they're forced not a 1 base award to all runners?? am i missing something?? I might be...

[scarolinablue]

So then maybe we did get it right after all

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The FIRST thing you do is enforce the CO penalty which means all runners move up a base. Therefore, ALL runners would originally advance on the CO penalty.

Only if they were running on the pitch (steal or squeeze) which is not the case here. No base award for the runners.

As for R1, he's out the instant the ball is dead on the interference. As a result, no runners are forced by the BR being awarded 1st.

[mbyron]

Although the OBS occurs first, the base award to the runners occurs after the end of playing action. At that time, R1 is out, so the other runners are not forced to advance by the award to BR.

Even if R2 and R3 were stealing in this scenario (and so entitled to advance on OBS even without being forced), they would still have to return under the penalty for INT.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Only if they were running on the pitch (steal or squeeze) which is not the case here. No base award for the runners.

From the OP

Sitch: (NFHS) Bases loaded, 1 out. B/R obstructed by the catcher as he hits a ground ball to F4.

Forget about the MC. Let's assume F4 tagged out R1 and threw to F3 for an APPARENT inning ending DP.

Since all runners including the BR did not advance one base we enforce the CI or CO.

Since bases were juiced, R3 would advance home R2 to third base, R1 to second and the BR to first.

We would have bases juiced one out AFTER the CI or CO penalty was enforced.

Now in addition to the aforementioned we have an MC infraction on R1 so the FINAL result would be runners at the corners (BR to first, R2 to third) and 2 outs.

REMEMBER the defense committed an infraction and should be penalized. In FED the "TRUMP CARD" would be if the SAME runner ALSO committed an MC infraction which would SUPERCEDE the OBS. That is not the case here. It's not like the BR was obstructed, then took a few steps out of the box and took a swing at F2. Then the MC would supercede the CO infraction.

Enforce each infraction as they occur UNLESS as mentioned the SAME runner also committs an infraction as in the case of MC.

Pete Booth

[UmpJM]

Pete,

REMEMBER the defense committed an infraction and should be penalized. In FED the "TRUMP CARD" would be if the SAME runner ALSO committed an MC infraction which would SUPERCEDE the OBS. That is not the case here. It's not like the BR was obstructed, then took a few steps out of the box and took a swing at F2. Then the MC would supercede the CO infraction.

Enforce each infraction as they occur UNLESS as mentioned the SAME runner also committs an infraction as in the case of MC.

While this is certainly a logical approach and certainly could be correct, Carl C. offers an alternative interpretation in the following case play from the BRD:

Play 170-327: FED only. R3: The runner is moving on the pitch; B1 squares around to attempt a suicide squeeze. The catcher jumps in front of the plate to grab the pitch and tag R3, who maliciously crashes into F2.

Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. F2 is guilty of obstruction. But since the "malicious crash rule" supersedes the "catcher's obstruction rule": R3 is out and ejected. B1 remains at the plate.

Carl seems to suggest that the statement from the FED rule book (8-2-4e1):

Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction.

means exactly what it says - whether the runner who committed MC is the same runner who was obstructed or not.

Now, I know Carl is not an "official interpreter" for FED, but given the extremely dim view taken by FED in regard to MC, I would not be shocked if the powers that be at FED would rule this a double play, runners return, ignore the catcher's obstruction because it was superseded by the R1's MC.

JM