Play at the plate

[Rich]

I stand corrected. Provided it is malicious contact:

The play, verbatim, is in the BRD (2011 edition, play 166-328, page 224). Ruling: R3 out and ejected, B1 remains at the plate, no pitch.

So malicious contact supersedes *any* obstruction.

Interestingly enough, Carl states in the BRD that Rumble first made this interpretation in 1988 and it became NFHS rule in 1995 and that this play actually happened in a game between those two dates and the umpire scored R3 and ejected him and awarded the BR first base and nobody complained.

[MikeStrybel]

That play apparently happened more than I believed.

I don't have a BRD. Can you please print the play and response? I have to teach the second part of their clinic next week and would like to know what it states. Thank you.

[Rich]

PLAY: Fed only. R3. The runner is moving on the pitch; B1 squares around to attempt a suicide squeeze. The catcher jumps in front of the plate to grab the pitch and tag R3, who maliciously contacts F2.

Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. F2 is guilty of obstruction. But since the "malicious crash" rule supersedes the "catcher's-obstruction rule": R3 is out and ejected. B1 remains at the plate.

Question: What about the pitch?

Answer: No pitch: It was a dead ball -- retroactively because the batter could not hit the pitch. (6-1-4)

A story follows and after the story it says: Remember, though, if R3 scored before the malicious crash, his run would have counted.

[MikeStrybel]

Thank you Rich. The plays are not exact but close enough. I've never seen this happen but it looks like it has a few times. I'm glad to see that I got it right. The back end was easier since I had an obstruction/MC call once. The catcher popped up and actually shoved the batter backwards with his glove in order to make the throw to third on an attempted steal. I would have put him on first until he took a swing at the catcher in retaliation. He got dumped and the replacement batter inherited his count.

I'm also glad to see that the father of this kid has good instincts. The call smelled. He's a decent guy and should make a good umpire. Thanks again!

[rcaverly]

I find myself seriously going against the grain here, but on this interpretation I disagree with the BRD and all the way-smarter-about-this-stuff-than-me folks who work on that fine pub. I’ve been wrong so many times before, I can’t begin to count them. And, I may be very wrong here. But, I see it differently.

I know malicious contact trumps obstruction, but only when both violations involve to the same runner: i.e.; obstruction does not give a runner license to maliciously contact a fielder during continuous action. In that case, the MC supercedes the obstruction. But, when two different runners are involved in two separate violations during the same continuous action, like in the OP, then the violations are taken in the order in which they occurred.

That said, I’ve got two separate offenses involving two separate players, so they are taken in the order that they occurred. (CB 8-3-2H)

The batter was obstructed by F2. (2-22-1)
The status of the ball was changed to delayed dead. (5-1-2b)

Ruling #1, if R3 was judged not to have made malicious contact with F2:

R3 failed to legally avoid the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him and/or deliberately knocked the ball from the fielder’s hands and would be declared out. The status of the ball would be unchanged for this base running infraction, unless interference was also ruled. (8-4-2c and/or 8-4-2r)

At the end of continuous action, the status of the ball was changed to dead ball to make awards for F2’s obstruction of the BR. (5-2-3)

There is no sane option, so none is offered. The BR would be awarded 1B and R3 would score, because he was advancing at the TOP, and his base running infraction would, in effect, be nullified. (8-1-1e)

Ruling #2, if R3 was judged to have made malicious contact with F2:

The status of the ball would be changed to dead due to R3’s malicious contact, which can neither be nullified nor ignored. (5-1-1m)

Again, there is no sane option, so none is offered. The BR would be awarded 1B because of the obstruction by F2 and R3 would score because, although unforced, he was advancing at the TOP. But, R3 must be declared out and ejected for his malicious contact. (3-3-1n, 8-1-1e)

[UmpJM]

FWIW,

I concur with rcaverly and bob jenkins and disagree with what Carl suggests in the BRD.

JM

[jkumpire]

But I have to disagree with the last few.

If I am correct about their rule-making philosophy, FED believes in 'punishing the offending team to the maximum extent of the law'.

If that is the case, in this play the batter has to stay at the plate. Obviously, Cav, et al have a great point, you have two separate infractions. But, MC is such a bad and punished play in FED, I would think the rules Committee would add on the addition penalty to the offense in this case.

This sounds like a case book play for next year's Case Book, who wants to send it on?

[UmpJM]

jk,

What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?

Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire's judgment.

The reason I find Carl's interpretation suspect is that the only cases where one team member is held accountable/penalized for another team member's action is when a double play is possible.

While I concur that the FED takes a very dim view of MC, I do not believe it is FED's intent that the defense not be held to account in any way for their CO infraction - rather, they are only excused with regard to the offensive player who committed the MC.

If you look at the MC case plays (starting with 3.3.1V), ther is no case where other runners are "penalized" in a special way because of the MC of a different runner. (3.3.1Y has the BR out as well, but it is because of the FPSR violation rather than the MC).

I believe Carl "overreached" in his interpretation on this one.

JM

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jk,

What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?



The reason I find Carl's interpretation suspect is that the only cases where one team member is held accountable/penalized for another team member's action is when a double play is possible.

While I concur that the FED takes a very dim view of MC, I do not believe it is FED's intent that the defense not be held to account in any way for their CO infraction - rather, they are only excused with regard to the offensive player who committed the MC.

If you look at the MC case plays (starting with 3.3.1V), ther is no case where other runners are "penalized" in a special way because of the MC of a different runner. (3.3.1Y has the BR out as well, but it is because of the FPSR violation rather than the MC).

I believe Carl "overreached" in his interpretation on this one.

JM

I don't think it's Carl, I think it was Rumble back in 1988. I'll alert Carl to this thread in case he wants to respond.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

Why would you have R3 scoring if the touch occurs after the MC?

There have been many points made since this was asked, but I'll answer why I stated this as my ruling (at least my thoughts at the time)

DDB - if we enforce the penalties for CO and the Balk then we can't also take the play - you get one or the other. The penalty for F2's actions is to award R3 home and B 1B. That is why I had R3 scoring. You can't over look the MC, so EJ after the award.

If we took the result of the play, I'd have him out and EJ b/c the MC was prior to the touch of home.

Note: this was my thinking when I posted. I need to re-read the posts since and decide exactly where I stand.

[ManInBlue]

I think I agree with rcave now that I've had a little time to digest the whole thing.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think it's Carl, I think it was Rumble back in 1988. I'll alert Carl to this thread in case he wants to respond.

Rich,

After you referenced it, I checked the BRD write-up.

I'm pretty sure that Carl's reference was to a Rumble ruling that "malicious contact supersedes obstruction" prior to that text being incorporated into the text of rule 8-4-2e(1).

I am fairly certain that the interpretation Carl offers, that the R3's malicious contact of F2 completely negates ALL awards resulting from the (catcher's) obstruction of the batter, is his own.

I honestly do not believe that is the intent of the FED rule.

I find bob jenkins' cite of 9.1.1M(b) more compelling - the "maliciously contacting" runner is deprived of his award, but the other runners are not. Of course, there isn't any "obstruction' in that play, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

While FED clearly frowns on malicious contact (as jkumpire observed), I believe they also frown on Catcher's Obstruction, from both a safety and a
balance of play perspective, and I doubt their intent is to completely absolve the defense from the penalty for their infraction with regard to offensive players not involved in the malicious contact.

I'll be interested to hear Carl's response. (Should he so deign.)

JM

[Carl Childress]

High School baseball - R3 and no outs. Tie game in the bottom of the last inning, playoff game between bitter rivals. Right handed BR shows bunt on the first pitch to guage fielder response. Ball one.

With the pitcher going through a very slow windup and ignoring the lead off, R3 makes a break for home. The catcher reacts by stepping up and contacts the batter and blocks the plate prior to receiving the pitch. R3 sees this and goes in hard, standing up in an effort to knock the ball loose. The ball is dropped and R3 touches the plate.

A regular on The Forum asked me to comment.

1. Contact above the waist and/or an attempt to dislodge the ball have never been published by the FED as elements of malicious contact. Their main criterion is that MC occurs when a “runner is deliberately attempting to injure the player.” (FED POE, 1988) That has always seemed absurd to me. We all know that players, except in rare cases of retaliation, crash into the catcher to knock the ball loose. My chapter in Texas adopted the NCAA definitions. (At my insistence, I might add.)

2. MC supersedes obstruction, as someone pointed out.

3. To me, this is a routine play: Call “That’s obstruction!” when the catcher interferes with the batter. It’s a delayed dead ball. Then, after the contact, call “Time! That’s malicious contact!” Signal the player is out and ejected. Don’t forget to wave off the run. If there had been other runners, they would return to the bases occupied at the time of the contact.

4. Those are the proper mechanics. But I recommend that the umpire, after he calls “time,” beckon both coaches to the plate. He should explain quietly what the ruling is. The presence of the defensive coach would serve to dampen the "enthusiasm" of the offense. They’re both professionals. Likely, Coach O wouldn’t want to look like a jerk in front of Coach D during a calm discussion at the plate.

[biggravy]

I think I follow you Carl, so what do we do with B and the count? Maybe an elementary question...

[Carl Childress]

Excellent question.

The catcher's obstruction turned the delivery into an illegal pitch.

The batter remains at the plate with a count of 1 and 0.