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

[johnnyg08]

So Pete, if I read your correctly, you have a run scoring on this play? hmmm?

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think dash has tipped the ice berg;

I'll climb out on this limb and start sawing......

I have bases juiced, 1 out, and a run scored.

You can't reward the D when there's CI.

At the end of continous action, the call of "time" on the MC/INT; R1 did not reach his advance base unto which, he was forced. Nor did the BR reach 1B.

You don't get to pick and chose in this enforcement. It's over shouting your partner, "no, I have CI, BR to 1B and all runners forced to, do so, "not you bozo, (R1) your gone", coach, I need a sub for the ejected R1 now R2..

I have: BR @ 1st, R1 (now replaced with a sub after the ejection) @ 2nd, R2 to 3rd and R3 scores. The Defene is not "obligated" an out on CI, they might get one if O want's to give it up.

Offensive coach has the option of declining the "enforcement", and accepting the play, (maybe he's up 10 runs in the top of last inning, with rain moving in? No, no, that's okay blue, I want the innning ending DP. And he could, IMO, but then.., I have to forfeit him, as he is palpably speeding up the game...skip that part..

From OBR, 6.08: Batter is awarded 1B if;

(c) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to "decline the interference penalty" and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. "However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, "and" all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

[mbyron]

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Catcher's obstruction is a delayed dead ball, and the ensuing playing action counts and must be factored in. The INT by R1 kills the play.

At that point, the two options are:
1. R1 out (and ejected for MC) AND BR out on the INT, inning over; or
2. BR awarded 1B on the OBS, R1 out (and ejected for MC) and other runners return on the INT.

You don't skip the out on R1 just because he's ejected. The out is for INT, the ejection is for MC. These penalties are not part of the choice that comes with the OBS penalty.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Catcher's obstruction is a delayed dead ball, and the ensuing playing action counts and must be factored in. The INT by R1 kills the play.

At that point, the two options are:
1. R1 out (and ejected for MC) AND BR out on the INT, inning over; or
2. BR awarded 1B on the OBS, R1 out (and ejected for MC) and other runners return on the INT.

You don't skip the out on R1 just because he's ejected. The out is for INT, the ejection is for MC. These penalties are not part of the choice that comes with the OBS penalty.

You'd "skip" the out on R1 if it was for "normal" interference. The result of that play would be bases loaded and a run in.

IMO, the fact that it's malicious changes the play, and the ruling.

[PeteBooth]

You enforce the penalties in order of occurance. There is FED case play ( not on this very issue) involving both OBS and interference. If there was NO MC on this play you would "skip the interference"

IMO, the "Monkey Wrench" is the MC and I am leaning more towards Bob's ruling assuming R3 did not ALREADY score before R1 Maliciously contacted F4.

If the conditions under CI or CO are not met then you enforce the penalty.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You'd "skip" the out on R1 if it was for "normal" interference. The result of that play would be bases loaded and a run in.

IMO, the fact that it's malicious changes the play, and the ruling.

Bob, what's your citation for this ruling? I've been taught to penalize offenses in the order in which they were committed. I don't pass on (normal) INT because of a prior catcher's obstruction.

Without the malicious contact, I still have R1 out, R2 and R3 return on the INT, and BR awarded 1B on the OBS.

Edited to add: the only case play my cursory search turns up with both OBS and INT penalizes both, and it explicitly articulates the principle of penalizing the infractions in the order in which they occur (usually OBS then INT, since INT generally kills the play). See 8.3.2H.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, what's your citation for this ruling? I've been taught to penalize offenses in the order in which they were committed. I don't pass on (normal) INT because of a prior catcher's obstruction.

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

So, if the offense has the choice of the obstruction or the play, what are their choices?

[johnnyg08]

Double play or R1 at 1B, runners return to because of the MC, take your pick

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

Bob, by your way of proceeding, you would agree with me. On the INT (without MC) we call out R1, and R2, R3 return. Then award BR 1B, which no longer forces the other runners (and they weren't stealing). The result is bases loaded, 2 outs.

However, I believe that penalties are enforced in the order of the offenses. The award for OBS can't be made until the end of playing action, but it doesn't follow that it can't be made first. So on the OBS, award BR 1B and the other runners (for the moment) are forced to advance. Then on the INT (without MC), R1 out, other runners return. (Of course, I would place the runners by their "net" award, not send R3 home and then back to 3B.)

Either way, no run scores on this play, with or without malicious contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, by your way of proceeding, you would agree with me. On the INT (without MC) we call out R1, and R2, R3 return. Then award BR 1B, which no longer forces the other runners (and they weren't stealing). The result is bases loaded, 2 outs.

However, I believe that penalties are enforced in the order of the offenses. The award for OBS can't be made until the end of playing action, but it doesn't follow that it can't be made first. So on the OBS, award BR 1B and the other runners (for the moment) are forced to advance. Then on the INT (without MC), R1 out, other runners return. (Of course, I would place the runners by their "net" award, not send R3 home and then back to 3B.)

Either way, no run scores on this play, with or without malicious contact.

IMO, once the CI is enforced, then the INT by R1 is negated.

All the choices are "logical." I recall that this (or a similar) play has been debated over the years with both sides (enforce in the order they happened; "nest" the penalties) making the same claims as in this thread. I don't recall any AO or interp to help guide us.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

So, if the offense has the choice of the obstruction or the play, what are their choices?

Play: R1 interferes (non-maliciously) with the intent to break up a DP -- so R1 and BR are out other runners return.

Obs: Either R1 is out and bases are loaded, or R1 isn't out, a run scores and bases are loaded.

I can't see a coach electing the "play".

[PeteBooth]

Not true.

Suppose R3 touched the plate before the MC. In FED, we return runners to the base last occupied At TOI unless it is a FPSR violation which is not the case in the OP.


Depending upon what "camp" you are in, on CO or CI followed by a play, the PU is supposed to explain to the offensive manger his options. So after playing action ends, at that point in time EXCEPT for the MC the runners are not placed anywhere until the manger is consulted. However, as Bob said why would a coach not want the penalty as presented in this OP. To do otherwise the inning would be over.

IMO, the only "Monkey Wrench" in the equation is the MC which in addition to the OBS in FED MUST be penalized.

If we did not have MC, the call is simple

The interference is "waved off" because all runners including the BR did not advance a base so enforce the CO. Since bases were juiced, R3 scores, R2 to third so on and so forth.

Since we had MC TIME was called at the moment the MC took place, so if R3 ALREADY crossed the plate, his run counts. If he didn't cross the plate, then R3 is returned to third base. R2 stays at second R1 is out on the MC and the BR to first.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If we did not have MC, the call is simple

The interference is "waved off" because all runners including the BR did not advance a base so enforce the CO. Since bases were juiced, R3 scores, R2 to third so on and so forth.

Citation please.

[prosec34]

I defer to you guys on being an expert on this, but I think there's two outs and the bases loaded with no runs scored.

You don't apply the obstruction penalty until after the play, and by that time, R1 is out. Thus R2 and R3 aren't forced to advance.