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

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

However, in FED, since malicious contact supercedes obstruction, [/I]

I think this statement prevents any runs from scoring due to R2 and R3 moving up one base because of the catcher's obstruction. When R1 was declared out for malicious contact, neither R2 nor R3 was forced to advance.

I would still award the batter-runner first base, but R2 and R3 will remain at the base they were occupying at the time of the malicious contact.

[mbyron]

The principle that "malicious contact supercedes obstruction" applies when the malicious contact and obstruction involve the same player.

For instance, if F2 obstructs R3 on a play at the plate, and then R3 maliciously contacts F2, we do not award R3 home on the obstruction.

The principle does not apply to the OP, since the OBS occurred prior to and independently of the malicious contact.