Play at the plate

[MikeStrybel]

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 dislodge the ball. The ball is dropped and R3 touches the plate.

What have you got?

[Ump29]

First, I do not do high school (I am in Canada) so will comment on OBR only. I have catcher interference and also intentional contact (at least in my area). You add your own penalties.

[bob jenkins]

CI.

Delayed dead ball. On the play, R3 is out for interference. Since B2 and R3 didn't both advance, award B2 first and R3 home. Ignore the interference.

(Of course, the coach *could* take the play, but he won't.)

[MikeStrybel]

Fed rules only please. I was asked this question by a coach at a clinic I held last night. He was in the stands at the game and his son was incolved in the collision (the catcher). I can tell you what was called.

Three man crew - the plate umpire ruled interference on the catcher. BR was placed on first and because he had killed the ball, R3 was returned to his original base. He disregarded the malicious contact. Neither coach was happy but both content because they each thought they escaped a blunder by their players. R3 scored on a wild pitch a batter later.

Now...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

CI.

Delayed dead ball. On the play, R3 is out for interference. Since B2 and R3 didn't both advance, award B2 first and R3 home. Ignore the interference.

(Of course, the coach *could* take the play, but he won't.)

Of course it's catcher's obstruction in NFHS rules and malicious contact supersedes obstruction. Except that the obstructed player was NOT the player who caused malicious contact, so to me, that phrase is a red herring.

Without a case play from the NFHS, I would probably deconstruct the play as you did. I'd score the run on the obstruction and eject the player after awarding the bases. Award B2 first, R3 home, R3 is out for the contact, but awarded home on the CI. And ejected.

[bob jenkins]

I didn't (and still don't) read MC in the OP description. Even in FED you can have a "collision" at the plate that isn't MC.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I didn't (and still don't) read MC in the OP description. Even in FED you can have a "collision" at the plate that isn't MC.

The runner sees the catcher, decides to go in standing, dislodges the ball going in hard. It's likely contact above the waist and was a planned decision according to the OP. It reads to me like MC. Regardless, the only differences in our answers involves an ejection for MC, so that part doesn't really matter, I don't think.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The runner sees the catcher, decides to go in standing, dislodges the ball going in hard. It's likely contact above the waist and was a planned decision according to the OP. It reads to me like MC. Regardless, the only differences in our answers involves an ejection for MC, so that part doesn't really matter, I don't think.

"Contact above the waist" is an NCAA criterion, and used to determine if the runner was attempting to reach the plate or to dislodge the ball.

Has nothing (on its own) to do with MC (or "flagrant contact" in NCAA).

If it was MC, then I agree with your answer. I'm "sure" there's some FED case where B1 hits a homerun, and MCs F3 on his way around -- score the run and EJ.

[MikeStrybel]

In Fed ball, I judge a deliberate attempt to dislodge the ball when not sliding as malicious. 8-4-2c and 8-4-2e also define the runner's actions in this play.

That said, I was troubled by the play and this is what I gave him without referencing a rule book. R3 was out and ejected for MC. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction and the rule book does not differentiate whether it is on the same player or not. The BR is not awarded first and the count remains 1-0 as the pitch cannot be judged since it was killed prior. One coach will be really upset. As the father of the catcher he seemed pleased. Other umpires in attendance argued that the batter should be on first because of the catcher's obstruction.

I welcome comments as long they are constructive and not otherwise. I don't ask when I know. On this play I am not so sure. Thanks again for discussing the play.

[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

[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.

[jicecone]

Well, I am happy for the umpires in Ohio however, when the iterperters start supporting their documented interpretation with references, then I might be more inclined to agree with them. As of now, I will side with Carl.

Of course, in 28 years I have never had this play and may never see it in the next 28 yrs either.

I am not disagreeing with the Ohio ruling, I am just not yet convinced to agree.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Well, I am happy for the umpires in Ohio however, when the iterperters start supporting their documented interpretation with references, then I might be more inclined to agree with them. As of now, I will side with Carl.

Of course, in 28 years I have never had this play and may never see it in the next 28 yrs either.

I am not disagreeing with the Ohio ruling, I am just not yet convinced to agree.

I agree with your point about "never in 28 years." Still, it would be nice to iron out this wrinkle. Given its rarity, we might not get anything from NFHS.

I don't suppose it would sway your opinion to learn that Ohio's lead interpreter is Kyle McNeely, current chair of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee? Nah, didn't think so.

[MikeStrybel]

That last post has me thinking about rarely used baseball rules that have been addressed by Fed. The 4th out comes to mind.

In over 30 years of calling games I have never seen a baseball go directly from the bat, off the catcher's hands or mitt and then become a caught ball by another fielder.

I'm still waiting to see the line drive that only hits the pitching plate and then goes directly over the foul lines before passing third or first base.

The Fed addresses a bunch of rare plays. I hope they address the MC superseding obstruction one soon. Right or wrong, I would like to be able to apply it the way it is intended.

If you can think of any other rarely used rules this may be interesting. (or not...rainy day in Chicago)

Enjoy your games today.