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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

So, if the offense has the choice of the obstruction or the play, what are their choices?

[johnnyg08]

Double play or R1 at 1B, runners return to because of the MC, take your pick

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

So, if the offense has the choice of the obstruction or the play, what are their choices?

Play: R1 interferes (non-maliciously) with the intent to break up a DP -- so R1 and BR are out other runners return.

Obs: Either R1 is out and bases are loaded, or R1 isn't out, a run scores and bases are loaded.

I can't see a coach electing the "play".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

Bob, by your way of proceeding, you would agree with me. On the INT (without MC) we call out R1, and R2, R3 return. Then award BR 1B, which no longer forces the other runners (and they weren't stealing). The result is bases loaded, 2 outs.

However, I believe that penalties are enforced in the order of the offenses. The award for OBS can't be made until the end of playing action, but it doesn't follow that it can't be made first. So on the OBS, award BR 1B and the other runners (for the moment) are forced to advance. Then on the INT (without MC), R1 out, other runners return. (Of course, I would place the runners by their "net" award, not send R3 home and then back to 3B.)

Either way, no run scores on this play, with or without malicious contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, by your way of proceeding, you would agree with me. On the INT (without MC) we call out R1, and R2, R3 return. Then award BR 1B, which no longer forces the other runners (and they weren't stealing). The result is bases loaded, 2 outs.

However, I believe that penalties are enforced in the order of the offenses. The award for OBS can't be made until the end of playing action, but it doesn't follow that it can't be made first. So on the OBS, award BR 1B and the other runners (for the moment) are forced to advance. Then on the INT (without MC), R1 out, other runners return. (Of course, I would place the runners by their "net" award, not send R3 home and then back to 3B.)

Either way, no run scores on this play, with or without malicious contact.

IMO, once the CI is enforced, then the INT by R1 is negated.

All the choices are "logical." I recall that this (or a similar) play has been debated over the years with both sides (enforce in the order they happened; "nest" the penalties) making the same claims as in this thread. I don't recall any AO or interp to help guide us.

[PeteBooth]

Not true.

Suppose R3 touched the plate before the MC. In FED, we return runners to the base last occupied At TOI unless it is a FPSR violation which is not the case in the OP.


Depending upon what "camp" you are in, on CO or CI followed by a play, the PU is supposed to explain to the offensive manger his options. So after playing action ends, at that point in time EXCEPT for the MC the runners are not placed anywhere until the manger is consulted. However, as Bob said why would a coach not want the penalty as presented in this OP. To do otherwise the inning would be over.

IMO, the only "Monkey Wrench" in the equation is the MC which in addition to the OBS in FED MUST be penalized.

If we did not have MC, the call is simple

The interference is "waved off" because all runners including the BR did not advance a base so enforce the CO. Since bases were juiced, R3 scores, R2 to third so on and so forth.

Since we had MC TIME was called at the moment the MC took place, so if R3 ALREADY crossed the plate, his run counts. If he didn't cross the plate, then R3 is returned to third base. R2 stays at second R1 is out on the MC and the BR to first.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If we did not have MC, the call is simple

The interference is "waved off" because all runners including the BR did not advance a base so enforce the CO. Since bases were juiced, R3 scores, R2 to third so on and so forth.

Citation please.

[prosec34]

I defer to you guys on being an expert on this, but I think there's two outs and the bases loaded with no runs scored.

You don't apply the obstruction penalty until after the play, and by that time, R1 is out. Thus R2 and R3 aren't forced to advance.

[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.

[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