Play at the plate

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

Carl,

Doesn't that contradict the ruling in the BRD play I posted above?

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Let me amend my earlier posts.

IF it was MC, and if it was before R3 touched the plate, then R3 is out, and B2 is awarded first.

See 9.1.1M and 3.3.1X.

Sorry, but that obstruction occurred during a dead ball.

Our play occurs with a ball that only becomes dead after the MC.

There is simply no way you can award the batter first base because the OBSTRUCTION NEVER OCCURRED.

That's what "supersedes" means: MC "takes the place of" the obstrution.

C'mon, guys: This is easy.

Rich: I posted a reply that disappeared. It was to the effect that the BRD ruling is the same as I posted here, just phrased differently.

I called it a routine play. The only "un-routine" part is that it was an OBR 7.07
[steping in front of the plate] rather than a palin vanilla blocking of the base without the ball.

See FED 3.3.1v and w.

Gotta go! Tournament games in the morning.

[bob jenkins]

Except -- the batter became a BR on the CO. He can't be sent back to the plate.

I think the OP is the same as: BR bunts. F1 obstructs him. F3 fields the ball and throws to the plate. R3 MC contacts F2.

Here, we're not sending BR back to the plate, are we?

I still have R1 at first, R3 out.

[rcaverly]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

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

I do not agree with this interpretation within the context of NFHS rules. Were it so, would not the status of the ball be changed to dead immediately upon F1's illegal act and nullify all action that follows; specifically, the base running infraction by R3 be it MC, or not? (5-1-1k)

[MikeStrybel]

It's probably time to add a BRD to my library.

I enjoy seeing so many opinions about this play. It would be interesting to see what Hopkins has to say about it. While I am happy that Carl has agreed with my thoughts on this I appreciate so many being concerned about screwing the batter on the play just preceding the malicious contact. I'm sure that his coach will be pretty upset too but I'm keeping him at the plate and leaving the count as it was. I can't see how the coach would win an appeal based on my ruling. Maybe next year Fed will adopt the NCAA argument rule. Then all we have to say is "Coach, you can't argue this play by rule. Let's get the game moving now." I can only hope.

Thanks again for the great exchanges. Sunshine and 60 coming here next week. It won't be long.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

I do not agree with this interpretation within the context of NFHS rules. Were it so, would not the status of the ball be changed to dead immediately upon F1's illegal act and nullify all action that follows; specifically, the base running infraction by R3 be it MC, or not? (5-1-1k)

We'd never ignore malicious contact, at least the ejection portion of it.

I wish Carl had explained his source or even his reasoning for the ruling.

[jkumpire]

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

JM,

I am not finding your quote in the reference you cited, but that's just me I guess.

My first response to you is that MC is an 'ejectable' offense to coin a phrase, but OBS by F2 is not.

Secondly, if the ruling you are using says you can place the runner based on the judgment of the umpire, and you can "look in the mirror" after the game and say you got the call right, go for it.

*****

To our good friend and chess player Carl,

I must disagree with you on using the idea the pitch is a dead ball on MC to keep the BR at the plate. This is by definition not an illegal pitch, the pitcher did nothing wrong on the play! I like the thinking, but twisting the rules into a pretzel doesn't work for me.

[MikeStrybel]

The ball thrown by the pitcher never had a chance to be judged unless called before reaching the plate, right?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

JM,

I am not finding your quote in the reference you cited, but that's just me I guess.

My first response to you is that MC is an 'ejectable' offense to coin a phrase, but OBS by F2 is not.

Secondly, if the ruling you are using says you can place the runner based on the judgment of the umpire, and you can "look in the mirror" after the game and say you got the call right, go for it.

*****

To our good friend and chess player Carl,

I must disagree with you on using the idea the pitch is a dead ball on MC to keep the BR at the plate. This is by definition not an illegal pitch, the pitcher did nothing wrong on the play! I like the thinking, but twisting the rules into a pretzel doesn't work for me.

If there was an NFHS equivalent of OBR 7.07, we wouldn't have to twist anything. This would be a balk, B1 would be awarded first base, and we'd still eject and call out R3 (Bob's case play on the home run would be appropriate because that's also a dead ball award).

No books with me, so if I'm missing the equivalent ruling in NFHS, someone will come along to correct me soon.

[UmpJM]

Rich,

No, you're not missing it - there is no equivalent to 7.07 in FED rules.

JM

[rcaverly]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The ball thrown by the pitcher never had a chance to be judged unless called before reaching the plate, right?

In NFHS rules, the batter is afforded the unimpeded opportunity to hit a legally delivered pitch. It is obstruction if that opportunity is denied. (CB 8.1.1F, G)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

In NFHS rules, the batter is afforded the unimpeded opportunity to hit a legally delivered pitch. It is obstruction if that opportunity is denied. (CB 8-1-1F, G)

Right, so B1 is awarded first base on catcher's obstruction (NFHS terms). What's the motivation (or thinking) for keeping the batter at the plate?

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Except -- the batter became a BR on the CO. He can't be sent back to the plate.

I think the OP is the same as: BR bunts. F1 obstructs him. F3 fields the ball and throws to the plate. R3 MC contacts F2.

Here, we're not sending BR back to the plate, are we?

I still have R1 at first, R3 out.

Bob:

I'm dropping out of this thread because it's become repetitive and third-world.

Supersede means instead of.

MC is penalized INSTEAD OF the obstrution: The outrageous act of the runner dissolved the penalty against the defense.

Simple play that happens often.

If you're on the field, you'd better hope the D coach doesn't know what "supersedes" means.

[MikeStrybel]

I keep him at the dish because 8-3-2 states...MALICIOUS CONTACT SUPERSEDES OBSTRUCTION. This same ruling is repeated in 8-4-2-e(1)

As Carl stated, it is as if Obs never happened. Nowehere does the Fed rule say that the Malicious contact must involve the player who was obstructed. Until the rule changes, it seems pretty easy to enforce.

Enjoy your season!

[UmpJM]

Mike and Carl,

Both 8-3-2 and 8-4-2(e)1 deal specifically and exclusively with a runner, not a batter.

Why do you think it's appropriate to apply that language to obstruction of a batter?

JM