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

[scarolinablue]

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.

[bobbybanaduck]

edited to remove sarcastic remark. thanks for the edit.

[johnnyg08]

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

[RPatrino]

Was this a night game or a day game?

[mbyron]

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.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

However, in FED, since malicious contact supercedes obstruction, [/I]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[dash_riprock]

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..

[johnnyg08]

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.

[dash_riprock]

Without the OBS you have 2 for sure.

[johnnyg08]

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

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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

why would it be ignored?

[btdt]

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

[johnnyg08]

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...

[bossman72]

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...