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

Sitch: (NFHS) Bases loaded, 1 out. B/R obstructed by the catcher as he hits a ground ball to F4. I (PU) give delayed dead ball sign and watch the play develop. F4 opts to tag R1 and then throw to first for the DP. However, R1 brings his arms up and extends...obvious malicious contact call, made immediately by my partner. Kills the play, declares the interference and gets the third out at first on the B/R, subsequently declared the malicious contact, ejects R1.

Now, lots of commotion, offensive coach coming out to question the malicious call, defensive team running off the field, and I'm waving my hands and shouting (as it was loud) "I have catcher's obstruction." By this time, both coaches are in the area behind the pitcher's mound as my partner and I converge to discuss the play and the options. At our request to move away, neither coach moved more than 5 feet, so we removed ourselves by 15-20 feet and began to discuss. At the same time we're discussing the play, the opposing coaches begin to jaw at one another and almost come together, stopped by me stepping between them and the assistants restraining them. We ordered both teams to the dugouts immediately to restore some order.

What we determined was this: Working under the assumption the offensive coach would not want the resulting double play and would apply the catcher's obstruction, we awarded the B/R first base, R2 third base, and R3 scored, with R1 declared out as a result of the malicious contact and ejected from the game. Now we have two outs, runners on first and third, and the coaches restricted to the dugouts for good measure.

Did we get it right (other than wishing we would have dumped the coaches just on general principle, since both are Class A rats)? Our reasoning was that by applying the obstruction, all runners are protected to move up one base, due to being forced up by the B/R being awarded 1B. However, in FED, since malicious contact supercedes obstruction, then R1 is declared out as a result of the malicious contact (3-3-1n). Should R2 and R3 been allowed to advance, then, given that R1 never actually gained second base?

Edited to fix the runner's nomenclature. My apologies for a substandard post.

edited to remove sarcastic remark. thanks for the edit.

yikes, what a mess, I've got to reread it a few more times...

Was this a night game or a day game?

Penalize offenses in the order in which they occurred, as you did. So you're right to think that on the OBS the offense will not take an inning-ending double play. BR awarded 1B.

R2 and R3 are NOT forced to advance by the award to BR, which occurs after playing action and R1 is out for INT. I would have returned them to their bases, so that the result was bases still loaded, 2 outs.

I think this statement prevents any runs from scoring due to R2 and R3 moving up one base because of the catcher's obstruction. When R1 was declared out for malicious contact, neither R2 nor R3 was forced to advance.

I would still award the batter-runner first base, but R2 and R3 will remain at the base they were occupying at the time of the malicious contact.

The principle that "malicious contact supercedes obstruction" applies when the malicious contact and obstruction involve the same player.

For instance, if F2 obstructs R3 on a play at the plate, and then R3 maliciously contacts F2, we do not award R3 home on the obstruction.

The principle does not apply to the OP, since the OBS occurred prior to and independently of the malicious contact.

I agree with mbyron. I also think you would return the runners even if they were stealing/running on the pitch (canceling the award they would have received for the catcher's obstruction), since they can't advance on the interference by R1, whether or not there was MC..

Okay, I'm going to try and break this down.

1. You have F2 on OBS...if the b/r safely reaches 1B, the OBS is ignored

2. R1 is tagged out (2 Out), then ejected for Malicious Contact. Immediate Dead ball. Return runners to last base reached prior to the MC...

My question here is that had no OBS occurred, could you have a double play here due to the willful and deliberate interference by illegally attempting to break up a double play?

So...we place B/R on 1B because of the OBS, then you also take the run off the board and return runners to 2B and 3B...bases loaded, 2 out. Which I think matches a couple other opinions on here.

Without the OBS you have 2 for sure.

okay, thanks Dash...didn't want to hijack the thread, so thx for the quick answer...

why would it be ignored?

step 1 delayed dead ball on catcher obstruction

step 2 b/r at first base called for malicious contact called out and ejected.

the end... in my opinion

well, if he successfully reaches 1B safely he wasn't really "obstructed" was he? w/o the OBS, you've pretty much got a double play...so if he successfully reaches 1B, minus the Malicious, what are you going to call? You'd still call the OBS, but ignore it becuase it didn't matter...the offense wasn't disadvantaged by the OBS...but I haven't seen a video clip...

1) Catcher's Int. Normal rule (as it applies here): BR gets first and all runners return, unless forced. Defense gets option of the play or the penalty.

2) Malicious contact and Intentional INT on R1. Normal Rule: R1 out and ejected and BR out. Runners return.


If we truly penalized in the order in which they occur, then we have R1 out and ejected and the BR (awarded first on the CI, which was administered first) out for the intentional interference by R1. R2 and R3 return because of the interference of R1.

...although mbyron's interp just "feels" more right since BOTH penalties are more or less enforced.

I'm confused...

In order for the obstruction to be ignored, the BR must reach 1st and all other runners must advance at least one base.

I agree bossman, I have a hard time calling a willfull and deliberate interference...because the CI gives the offense the option in this case to accept the play or the runner at 1B...the MC had no effect on the double play because had the CI not occurred, the MC would've come into play...Yep, I'm on Mbyron's ruling here...but I like talking about this situation...it's not about who's right/wrong on here necessarily...we need to get to a situation where we all get this right on the field...keep 'em coming guys...although I think we have the correct sitch on here...

true but technically here we have catcher's interference...which, I think portions of the OBS rule don't apply to the catcher's interference rule...

I think the catcher obstruction happened first, so BR is awarded 1B, no chance for a DP involving BR. Interference kills the play and removes the force, R1 is out and ejected, runners return, no run scores. 2 outs, 1 player tossed, bases still loaded.

Offense is not going to take result of the play instead of catcher obstruction, because the result should be a DP for maliciously interfering with a DP attempt.

Just a side note, I don't think I would have a discussion with my partner 15-20 feet from 2 coaches who are head to head in such a volatile situation. They must each go their own dugout or very near it and then my partner and I will discuss.

B/R has the right to 1B. R1 is out regardless the majorinfraction only halts the play.

Why assume anything in a coaching decision?

After some discussion with our association board, our conclusion sounds a lot like the consensus I'm seeing here (I think):

B/R awarded 1B, R1 declared out as a result of the MC, R2 and R3 should have stayed put without advance due to R1 not reaching 2B. So, we erred in allowing R2 and R3 to advance. The small consolation prize is that the next two batters got hits to score 3 runs, so the original award of a run ultimately didn't factor in the outcome. Like I said though, small consolation...I'd obviously rather had gotten it right the first time. Thanks for the discussion...one of the strangest sitches I've had in a while.

Of course, last night, got to apply the called strike for the batter inexplicably walking out of the batters box without requesting time...the pitch was low and a foot outside, but became strike three anyway!:D

[QUOTE]We have CO therefore,

The first question is:

Did all runners including the BR advance 1 base.

Answer NO:

Therefore, the first thing you need to do is enforce the CO infraction.

Let's forget about the MC for a minute. In the OP, not everyone advanced one base so if there was no MC, you would award all runners including the BR one base. We would be left with bases juiced 1 out.

However, in the OP R1 maliciously contacted F4 so R1 is out.

Final Result. R3 scores, R2 to third, R1 declared out because of MC and the BR to first base - 2 outs.

Pete Booth

Don't see how you can award bases to R2 & R3. If they aren't awarded bases under the CO, how can they be awarded them with INT?

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

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...

?!?!?!?!?
 

:confused: So then maybe we did get it right after all

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.

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.

[QUOTE]From the OP

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

Pete,

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:

Carl seems to suggest that the statement from the FED rule book (8-2-4e1):

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

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

I think dash has tipped the ice berg;

I'll climb out on this limb and start sawing......

I have bases juiced, 1 out, and a run scored.

You can't reward the D when there's CI.

At the end of continous action, the call of "time" on the MC/INT; R1 did not reach his advance base unto which, he was forced. Nor did the BR reach 1B.

You don't get to pick and chose in this enforcement. It's over shouting your partner, "no, I have CI, BR to 1B and all runners forced to, do so, "not you bozo, (R1) your gone", coach, I need a sub for the ejected R1 now R2..

I have: BR @ 1st, R1 (now replaced with a sub after the ejection) @ 2nd, R2 to 3rd and R3 scores. The Defene is not "obligated" an out on CI, they might get one if O want's to give it up.

Offensive coach has the option of declining the "enforcement", and accepting the play, (maybe he's up 10 runs in the top of last inning, with rain moving in? No, no, that's okay blue, I want the innning ending DP. And he could, IMO, but then.., I have to forfeit him, as he is palpably speeding up the game...skip that part..

From OBR, 6.08: Batter is awarded 1B if;

(c) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to "decline the interference penalty" and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. "However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, "and" all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Catcher's obstruction is a delayed dead ball, and the ensuing playing action counts and must be factored in. The INT by R1 kills the play.

At that point, the two options are:
1. R1 out (and ejected for MC) AND BR out on the INT, inning over; or
2. BR awarded 1B on the OBS, R1 out (and ejected for MC) and other runners return on the INT.

You don't skip the out on R1 just because he's ejected. The out is for INT, the ejection is for MC. These penalties are not part of the choice that comes with the OBS penalty.

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.

You enforce the penalties in order of occurance. There is FED case play ( not on this very issue) involving both OBS and interference. If there was NO MC on this play you would "skip the interference"

IMO, the "Monkey Wrench" is the MC and I am leaning more towards Bob's ruling assuming R3 did not ALREADY score before R1 Maliciously contacted F4.

If the conditions under CI or CO are not met then you enforce the penalty.

Pete Booth

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.

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?

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

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.

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".

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

Citation please.

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.

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

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.

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

Says you. Prove it.

In this thread, I've already cited 8.3.2H, which deals with a different scenario containing both obstruction and interference. That case states:
Now, you claim that the interference is "waved off" or ignored, or some such. Please provide ONE citation in ANY rule book that says anything remotely like that in a case with both obstruction and runner or batter interference.

My position is: I have cited authoritative support for my interpretation, and you have not done the same. I do not take your word for it, and merely declaring that I do not understand fails to provide the requested rules support for your view.

the "waved off" part is the problem here. it's not "waved off." it happened. however, in happening it caused us to now have to enforce the CI penalty because all runners including the batter runner did not advance one base. the int still happened, it's not "waved off," it's just highly unlikely that the offense would elect to take the result of the play instead of the penalty for the CI.

I emailed our state rules interpreter and this is the answer I got. Sounds about right since the force was removed.


Would like your input on this particular play. None out and bases loaded. Batter hits a ground ball to F4, but is obstructed with by the catcher. On the play, runner from first maliciously contacts F4. What do we as umpires do?

1. Do we eject the runner from 1B, send runners back to 2B & 3B, and leave batter on 1B?

2. Eject runner from 1B, enforce FPSR, and return runners to 2B & 3B?

3. Move runners up one base, eject runner from 1B, and leave batter on 1B?



You would do no. 1. The batter-runner is awarded 1st and R3 the runner on 1st is out and ejected. Because he is out the other runners are not forced to move up due to the BR being awarded 1st.

Says you. Prove it.

In this thread, I've already cited 8.3.2H, which deals with a different scenario containing both obstruction and interference. That case states:

Quote:
Originally Posted by casebook
The umpire shall deal with obstruction and then interference, since this is the order in which the infractions occurred.

I'm still out there sawing. Now, I don't know FED, so if's there's something in there specific to MC "changing everything", I'm sticking to the rule book, obr that is. I don't know what your quote (above) from the case book is all about, so would need to read the whole case, to be swayed.

As far as the State Inter., well, he no doubt has his thoughts on this, just like many others here on this topic. But til I see something more, I'm stuck, on my limb..

I say the CI enforcement is enforced after the play "unless" (we all know that)...
All runners "including the BR did not reach there advance bases on the play.
The CI penalty is : advance all runners, to correct the catcher interfering with my # 4 hitter, not being allowed to smoke one to the RF gap for a 3 bagger.
IMO there is no possible way to award the D with an out. Unless, the O wants too. This is catchers interference man, what's the deterent to not just grab the big guys bat everytime he comes up with the bases juiced?

I gotta think it's not the O's fault, This play would not have happened W/O the CI, it's our job to make it so.

You can achieve the same objective with less risk by issuing an IBB.

FED Difference
 

Since you state you don't know FED, the difference in FED is that with MC on an offensive player, along with the the ejection you also get an out, as long as the runner has not already scored (this has been stated previously on this thread). So, since we've applied the CO, awarded the B/R 1B, and have now declared R1 out, R2 and R3 are not forced to the next base, so should remain on 2B and 3B.

On a side note, worked a great game Wed. night - home team wins in 6.5 innings, 1-0 game, home pitcher had a one-hitter with 17K's, losing pitcher scatters 6 hits with 7 K's. Game time 1:35. :) Oh yeah, had to eject the visiting catcher in the bottom of the 6th for what else, malicious contact - he absolutely blew up a runner who was trying to score from third on an infield grounder, but had slowed to a stop in the baseline as he was out by 10 feet. Totally went over the top on the tag, almost knocked the runner down. I hope this isn't a trend for the rest of the season.

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.

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.

Great, but why are you telling ME this? :)

"Are you talkin' to ME? Are YOU talkin' to ME?" :p

No run, BR out.

No, it's not.

It says that, yes.

No, I don't see where you are going with this.

In FED, it is clearly CO, and, frankly, the term amkes more sense to me than CI.