Play at the plate

[Rich Ives]

Catcher obstructs the batter then maliciously contacts the runner coming home. Then what?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

John,
Thanks for asking. I am only echoing what I see as an absolute in the rule book. There are no exceptions listed. It states that malicious contact supersedes obstruction, period. I remember when this rule was first a hot button. A guy asked our interpreter about it and we were told that the rule makes no distinction. MC is the most dangerous act taken upon a student athlete and it nullifies other calls. He said it is designed to penalize the offending team in the worst way possible. He kept saying that it was the easiest call to make. I'm not sure of that.

Draft day tomorrow for my son's 11U team. I agreed to coach them this year so I get to wear two hats again. I may need advice or plenty of Advil from you this season!

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Draft day tomorrow for my son's 11U team. I agreed to coach them this year so I get to wear two hats again. I may need advice or plenty of Advil from you this season!

Congratulations on passing the background checks. Not everyone on this forum might.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

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.

As pie.

Rich: I posted a reply that disappeared.

Welcome to moderation?

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.

Yes, routine, what's the buzz, eh?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

.Welcome to moderation?

There was no "moderation" of any of Carl's posts in this thread (or any other thread in the past day or so, and he hasn't been on here in quite a while before that).

[rcaverly]

I found this NFHS interp from ’09 that rules when the same player is involved in two separate infractions, the "penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred." Cannot that principle be extended to two separate infractions by other than the same player simply by ambiguous assertion?

’09 SITUATION 15: With runners at first and second and one out, the batter hits a bounding ball to left field. The runner from second touches third and is obstructed advancing to home. The obstructed runner then interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on the runner from first advancing to third base. RULING: The penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred. The runner advancing from second is awarded home. Following the enforcement for the obstruction, the interference is penalized. The runner from first is declared out and the batter-runner is returned to the base he legally occupied at the time of the interference. Had the interference been malicious in nature, the obstructed runner would be declared out in addition to the out on the runner from first. (2-22-1, 2-21-1a, 3-3-1n Penalty, 8-4-2e, 8-4-2g)

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

?

CO

Since the ball was NOT hit and the batter NEVER became a runner the ball is dead at that point. Score R3 and put B1 at first base.

here's a case play for illustration.

FED case play 8.1.1L

R3 trying to score on a steal or squeeze play. F2 obstructs the batter's swing.

RULING:

Defensive OBS R3 awarded home and B1 to first base.

COMMENT: If F2 or any other defensive player obstructs the batter BEFORE he has become a runner the batter is awarded first base. If on such OBS a runner is trying to score by a steal or squeeze from third, R3 is awarded home and B1 to first base.

Therefore, in the OP the umpire would signal TIME since B1 NEVER became a runner and theoretically the MC would not have occured because R3 would have stopped when he saw the umpire call TIME.

Here is another case play to illustrate.

FED case play 8.1.1G

R3. After F1 winds up R3 starts home. F3 playing in cuts off the pitch and tags R1.

RULING: OBS. The ball becomes dead when touched by F3. R3 awarded home and the BR to first.

In a nutshell when B1 does NOT hit the ball and thus does not become a runner, the ball is dead at that point and the CO enforced. That in itself does not give a runner carte blanche to MC another player but if the player sees the call of TIME for the most part the MC will be prevented.

Pete Booth

[Carl Childress]

To see how the FED treats the meaning of “supersede,” study 3-1-1 in conjunction with batting out of order.

Irwin is on third. Able should bat, but Kent bats and singles. Irwin scores.

Before a pitch to the next batter, the defense appeals that Kent was an illegal substitute, and the umpire agrees. Kent is out, and Irwin returns to third. Now Able steps up to bat.

The defense wants Able declared out because he didn't bat in proper order. They want Baker at the plate.

“No,” says the umpire. “The penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order.”

The umpire’s point: Nobody has batted out of order yet! Irwin was the last legal batter and he's on base. The next legal batter is Able.

My point: The defense can't have two outs on the play.

Ah, but there's more. The FED adopted the rigorous penalties for "illegal substitution" in 1994. The statute included this curious phrase: "If applicable, the batting out of order rules shall be enforced."

That led me to construct the following play for the 1994 BRD:

[With the bases loaded] Able should bat but illegal substitute Bubba bats and ... in (b) singles, driving in two runs, after which he is appealed before a pitch .... In (b) Bubba is out (illegal sub rule) and Able is out (batting out of order rule); the two runs are canceled and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the last pitch to Bubba. Baker is now the proper batter with two outs and the bases loaded .... Note: The idea of “two outs for one at bat” is foreign to the basic concepts of the game, which include “three up and three down.” In researching [this play], my editor [Scott Ehret] and I received conflicting information, but “two are out” was the most frequent ruling.

Kyle McNeeley, then a consultant to the Texas State Umpires Association, agreed: Two are out. [Kyle is now a permanent member of the NFHS rules committee.]

This situation lasted only until 1996, when, after listening to the BRD, the FED adopted a major change: "The penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order."

Amazing! Now I remember why I stopped posting. Too many experts with too many egos to defend.

I do not include Pete Booth in the group of ego-defenders. He quoted 8.1.1L. Pete, there's a difference. In the play in question, the MC "supersedes" the obstruction. In your play, there's no MC, so it's a simple ruling: Any runner advancing keeps his base, and the batter gets first. Sorry. Not relevant to the discussion.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Catcher obstructs the batter then maliciously contacts the runner coming home. Then what?

=
Rich: I like this play because it neatly proves what I've been saying.

The obstruction is NOT canceled by an offensive penalty. So, the poor defense is going to get [meat] axed.

The runner scores, the batter goes to first, the catcher is ejected. And, as I am wont to say, the umpire will restrict the assistant defensive coach.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

As pie.Welcome to moderation? Yes, routine, what's the buzz, eh?

I didn't mean to imply that Bob deleted one of my posts. My reply to Rich was deleted by one of my fat fingers, and I didn't want to take the time to recreate it.

It's been years since I took part in a rules discussion here, so I forgot there is an actual moderator.

Sorry, Bob!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

=
Rich: I like this play because it neatly proves what I've been saying.

The obstruction is NOT canceled by an offensive penalty. So, the poor defense is goig to get [meat] axed.

The runner score, the batter goes to first, the catcher is ejected. And, as I am wont to say, the umpire will restrict the assistant defensive coach.

Carl,

So now you're saying malicious contact does NOT always supersede obstruction?

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Until Hopkins and the rules committee change the book, MC supersedes obstruction with no exceptions made. I received a PM that said I was posting a third world play and should stop it. My apologies but I simply wanted confirmation of what I told a clinic attendee. I do have a problem with the way the rule is written and maybe some debate will bring about change. For example, a batter hits a gapper and is obstructed rounding first. He holds up while R3 dumptrucks the catcher trying to score on the hit. By rule, we have an out and ejection (he didn't score first) and BR stays put at first since the obstruction penalty is ignored when MC hamstrings his team. I don't like it but that seems to be what the rule allows - no exceptions.

Off to the batting cages with my son. Thanks for the great response to the question. Enjoy your night.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Carl,

So now you're saying malicious contact does NOT always supersede obstruction?

JM

No, I'm saying what I said, JM.

Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction when each team violates.

Good lord, if what you're implying would be true, a catcher could maliciously tag the runner just to keep the batter off first.

Lah, me.

Adios, all!

[rcaverly]

I hate to wake up a dead horse, but I asked for an interp from my state (Ohio) through our local interpreter. They recently ruled that the two infractions (D obstructs the O; then the O MCs the D) are to be treated in the order in which they occurred in that they occurred to different runners.

So, the BR gets 1B on the obstruction by F2. R3, who was advancing on the obstruction, would have scored, except his MC prior to scoring makes him out and EJ’d by rule, one on and one out.

I do hope the NFHS clarifies soon the sentence, “Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.” I suggest it should read something to the effect of, “When an obstructed runner causes malicious contact, only the penalties for that obstruction are superseded by the penalties for the malicious contact. When one runner is obstructed and another runner causes malicious contact, the separate penalties are enforced in the order in which they occurred.”

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

I hate to wake up a dead horse, but I asked for an interp from my state (Ohio) through our local interpreter. They recently ruled that the two infractions (D obstructs the O; then the O MCs the D) are to be treated in the order in which they occurred in that they occurred to different runners.

So, the BR gets 1B on the obstruction by F2. R3, who was advancing on the obstruction, would have scored, except his MC prior to scoring makes him out and EJ’d by rule, one on and one out.

I do hope the NFHS clarifies soon the sentence, “Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.” I suggest it should read something to the effect of, “When an obstructed runner causes malicious contact, only the penalties for that obstruction are superseded by the penalties for the malicious contact. When one runner is obstructed and another runner causes malicious contact, the separate penalties are enforced in the order in which they occurred.”

A sensible interp from our home state.

Another possible clarification: “Malicious contact by a runner, including the batter-runner, supersedes obstruction of that runner.”

Don't really need much more than that, since we already have in place the principle of enforcing the penalties for multiple infractions in the order in which they occurred. The only obstacle to applying this principle to the case at hand was the (IMO erroneous) application of the "superseding" principle instead. Narrow the superseding principle and the problem goes away.