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.

[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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

What we determined was this: Working under the assumption

Why assume anything in a coaching decision?

[scarolinablue]

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!

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[dash_riprock]

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?

[PeteBooth]

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

[johnnyg08]

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...

[scarolinablue]

So then maybe we did get it right after all

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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.

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Only if they were running on the pitch (steal or squeeze) which is not the case here. No base award for the runners.

From the OP

Sitch: (NFHS) Bases loaded, 1 out. B/R obstructed by the catcher as he hits a ground ball to F4.

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

[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...