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

[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.