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

[PeteBooth]

Do not need a citation it's in the rules under CO.

After playing action is over the question is

1. Did all runners including the BR advance at least one base.

If the answer is yes then the CO is ignored

If the answer is NO

Then you enforce the CO penalty.

It's that simple and spelled out in the rules. In effect infractions (except MC) that occured after the OBS do not count so if there was interference IN EFFECT it didn't happen because the CO penalty "trumps" it if you will.

IMO, the only "wrinkle" in the OP was we had MC.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Do not need a citation it's in the rules under CO.

Yes, we penalize CO if the runners do not reach their advance base. That does not prove that we "wave off" the interference.

"Waving off interference" is not in the rule book. Unless you can provide a citation, I can conclude only that you made that up.

[PeteBooth]

You simply do not undestand the CO infraction

One more time

We have bases loaded 1 out (NO MC this time) B1 is obstructed by F2 but manages to hit the ball to F4.

While attempting to field the ball F4 is interfered with by R1 and in the judgement of the BU there would have been an easy DP. Notice in FED we do not use the terms Willfully and deliberately with obvious intent. Those are OBR terms.

At the moment R1 interferes with F4 we have

1. TIME
2. R1 and the BR are DECLARED out

Apparently inning over

HOWEVER, we now have to enforce the CO penalty

How do we enforce the CO penalty?

Since bases were juiced, every-one moves up a base. The interference is "waved off" because in fact it didn't happen.

If we go by your ruling you would enforce the interference and the inning would be over and ignore the CO infraction. That's not what happens.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

HOWEVER, we now have to enforce the CO penalty

How do we enforce the CO penalty?

Since bases were juiced, every-one moves up a base. The interference is "waved off" because in fact it didn't happen.

If we go by your ruling you would enforce the interference and the inning would be over and ignore the CO infraction. That's not what happens.

Pete Booth

Says you. Prove it.

In this thread, I've already cited 8.3.2H, which deals with a different scenario containing both obstruction and interference. That case states:

Originally Posted by casebook

The umpire shall deal with obstruction and then interference, since this is the order in which the infractions occurred.

Now, you claim that the interference is "waved off" or ignored, or some such. Please provide ONE citation in ANY rule book that says anything remotely like that in a case with both obstruction and runner or batter interference.

My position is: I have cited authoritative support for my interpretation, and you have not done the same. I do not take your word for it, and merely declaring that I do not understand fails to provide the requested rules support for your view.

[bobbybanaduck]

the "waved off" part is the problem here. it's not "waved off." it happened. however, in happening it caused us to now have to enforce the CI penalty because all runners including the batter runner did not advance one base. the int still happened, it's not "waved off," it's just highly unlikely that the offense would elect to take the result of the play instead of the penalty for the CI.

[Steven Tyler]

I emailed our state rules interpreter and this is the answer I got. Sounds about right since the force was removed.


Would like your input on this particular play. None out and bases loaded. Batter hits a ground ball to F4, but is obstructed with by the catcher. On the play, runner from first maliciously contacts F4. What do we as umpires do?

1. Do we eject the runner from 1B, send runners back to 2B & 3B, and leave batter on 1B?

2. Eject runner from 1B, enforce FPSR, and return runners to 2B & 3B?

3. Move runners up one base, eject runner from 1B, and leave batter on 1B?



You would do no. 1. The batter-runner is awarded 1st and R3 the runner on 1st is out and ejected. Because he is out the other runners are not forced to move up due to the BR being awarded 1st.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I emailed our state rules interpreter and this is the answer I got. Sounds about right since the force was removed.


Would like your input on this particular play. None out and bases loaded. Batter hits a ground ball to F4, but is obstructed with by the catcher. On the play, runner from first maliciously contacts F4. What do we as umpires do?

1. Do we eject the runner from 1B, send runners back to 2B & 3B, and leave batter on 1B?

2. Eject runner from 1B, enforce FPSR, and return runners to 2B & 3B?

3. Move runners up one base, eject runner from 1B, and leave batter on 1B?



You would do no. 1. The batter-runner is awarded 1st and R3 the runner on 1st is out and ejected. Because he is out the other runners are not forced to move up due to the BR being awarded 1st.

Says you. Prove it.

In this thread, I've already cited 8.3.2H, which deals with a different scenario containing both obstruction and interference. That case states:

Quote:
Originally Posted by casebook
The umpire shall deal with obstruction and then interference, since this is the order in which the infractions occurred.

I'm still out there sawing. Now, I don't know FED, so if's there's something in there specific to MC "changing everything", I'm sticking to the rule book, obr that is. I don't know what your quote (above) from the case book is all about, so would need to read the whole case, to be swayed.

As far as the State Inter., well, he no doubt has his thoughts on this, just like many others here on this topic. But til I see something more, I'm stuck, on my limb..

I say the CI enforcement is enforced after the play "unless" (we all know that)...
All runners "including the BR did not reach there advance bases on the play.
The CI penalty is : advance all runners, to correct the catcher interfering with my # 4 hitter, not being allowed to smoke one to the RF gap for a 3 bagger.
IMO there is no possible way to award the D with an out. Unless, the O wants too. This is catchers interference man, what's the deterent to not just grab the big guys bat everytime he comes up with the bases juiced?

I gotta think it's not the O's fault, This play would not have happened W/O the CI, it's our job to make it so.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

This is catchers interference man, what's the deterent to not just grab the big guys bat everytime he comes up with the bases juiced?

You can achieve the same objective with less risk by issuing an IBB.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Says you. Prove it.

In this thread, I've already cited 8.3.2H, which deals with a different scenario containing both obstruction and interference. That case states:

Quote:
Originally Posted by casebook
The umpire shall deal with obstruction and then interference, since this is the order in which the infractions occurred.

I'm still out there sawing. Now, I don't know FED, so if's there's something in there specific to MC "changing everything", I'm sticking to the rule book, obr that is. I don't know what your quote (above) from the case book is all about, so would need to read the whole case, to be swayed.

As far as the State Inter., well, he no doubt has his thoughts on this, just like many others here on this topic. But til I see something more, I'm stuck, on my limb..

I say the CI enforcement is enforced after the play "unless" (we all know that)...
All runners "including the BR did not reach there advance bases on the play.
The CI penalty is : advance all runners, to correct the catcher interfering with my # 4 hitter, not being allowed to smoke one to the RF gap for a 3 bagger.
IMO there is no possible way to award the D with an out. Unless, the O wants too. This is catchers interference man, what's the deterent to not just grab the big guys bat everytime he comes up with the bases juiced?

I gotta think it's not the O's fault, This play would not have happened W/O the CI, it's our job to make it so.

Since you state you don't know FED, the difference in FED is that with MC on an offensive player, along with the the ejection you also get an out, as long as the runner has not already scored (this has been stated previously on this thread). So, since we've applied the CO, awarded the B/R 1B, and have now declared R1 out, R2 and R3 are not forced to the next base, so should remain on 2B and 3B.

On a side note, worked a great game Wed. night - home team wins in 6.5 innings, 1-0 game, home pitcher had a one-hitter with 17K's, losing pitcher scatters 6 hits with 7 K's. Game time 1:35. Oh yeah, had to eject the visiting catcher in the bottom of the 6th for what else, malicious contact - he absolutely blew up a runner who was trying to score from third on an infield grounder, but had slowed to a stop in the baseline as he was out by 10 feet. Totally went over the top on the tag, almost knocked the runner down. I hope this isn't a trend for the rest of the season.

[dash_riprock]

I'm coming around to Pete's view. The only hint the case book gives us is 8.3.2.H, which confirms that both violations are penalized, in their order of occurrence. It also confirms that the penalties are awarded independently, since the INT does not cause the base award to be rescinded, as it would absent the obstruction. The runner who committed the INT is out, but he was not awarded a base on the OBS, so the case is not exactly on point with the OP.

The ball was dead before the BR reached first and/or all other runners advanced at least one base, so the OBS is enforced. I would move everybody up one for the OBS, then call R1 out for the INT, and eject him for the MC. I would not call 2 (as you would absent the OBS) because the BR was awarded 1st, and didn't commit the INT.

One run in, R1, R3, two out.

[soundedlikeastrike]

CI, advance all runners forced to advance and the BR to 1st.

R1 as well as R2 and R3 are forced to advance, due to B becoming BR.

Due to the CI, R1 was "not" able to reach his advance base, he was tagged out by F4. The MC and or INT comes after; 1. CI and 2. the tag out.

If Fed say's you gotta have an out on MC then okay. Hokie, but I could live with it.. But I gotta ask: what if 2 outs, no body on, B hit's an HR, but MC's F3 while rounding 1st? Is he now out, with no run scoring, or would a sub be allowed to run the bases for him?

I'm wondering if the FED term "CO" is muddying the waters on this?

FED clearly say's, "MC trumps OBS"?

In the OP had R1 been obstructed, I'd agree 100% on MC trumping him and earning an out.

But, OBS was not "really" the call, it was CI/CO, see where I'm going with this?

This is not OBS, it is Catchers Interference, only called Catchers Obstruction. Still a different beast. OBS I protect the OBSed runner, not necessarily every runner.

Not the case in CI, I'm now obligated to perhaps "protect all"...

I say the CI trumps all, as CI caused the ensuing play. The play didn't meet the rules definition of when to; disregard, wave off, or ignore, the CI.

Since I now have to enforce the CI; I must disregard the "play" and start from the beginning. Award all runners including the BR their next base.

Without further case examples to sway me: in an OBR game: I would advance all runnners (except the ejected one) who although ejected, is still deserving of 2nd.
I would allow the sub, bases juiced, a run scored.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

If Fed say's you gotta have an out on MC then okay. Hokie, but I could live with it..

Great, but why are you telling ME this?

"Are you talkin' to ME? Are YOU talkin' to ME?"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

But I gotta ask: what if 2 outs, no body on, B hit's an HR, but MC's F3 while rounding 1st? Is he now out, with no run scoring, or would a sub be allowed to run the bases for him?

No run, BR out.

I'm wondering if the FED term "CO" is muddying the waters on this?

No, it's not.

FED clearly say's, "MC trumps OBS"?

It says that, yes.

In the OP had R1 been obstructed, I'd agree 100% on MC trumping him and earning an out.

But, OBS was not "really" the call, it was CI/CO, see where I'm going with this?

No, I don't see where you are going with this.

This is not OBS, it is Catchers Interference, only called Catchers Obstruction. Still a different beast. OBS I protect the OBSed runner, not necessarily every runner.

In FED, it is clearly CO, and, frankly, the term amkes more sense to me than CI.