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

[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.