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

[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powers that be at FED would rule this a double play, runners return, ignore the catcher's obstruction because it was superseded by the R1's MC.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