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

[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

[johnnyg08]

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