I suggest that until Elliot Hopkins offers a clarification, the rule book penalty should stand. As far back as I can remember, Fed always penalizes the team causing the infraction in the worst possible way. While I agree that the separate plays should remain so, they have a history of protecting the team that suffers most.

MC supersedes obstruction.

1. It's not the rule book penalty, it's your (and apparently Carl's) interpretation of what "MC supersedes obstruction" means.

2. Fortunately, in Ohio, we now have a more sensible interpretation that has the force of rule.

Okay. I cannot argue with your need to believe what isn't there.

"You wouldn't have a game without rules, so the obvious answer is that the rules define the game."

Enjoy your season.
------------------------------------------------------

For the rest of the board, I have been wrong plenty of times in my life. I do not pretend to be an expert on all things baseball and comment only when I believe it is relevant. If Elliot Hopkins publishes a clarification of the MC rule that contradicts my thoughts about it, I will happily concede and employ the proper penalty(ies) when appropriate. This is not a contest. I have been umpiring for a few decades now and enjoy communicating with those who want to help make us all better - on the field and off. It is my hope that our discussion leads to improvements in officiating, nothing more.

Rain and 36 degrees here today. First game of the season is scheduled for tomorrow. Does Honig's sell thermo waders?

Have a great season, guys.

Mike, what I think is happening is two different approaches to the rule. One would be yours which is the more modern, post 2006 viewpoint. The other would be Strybel's, old, dated and pre-2005.;)This would be the more philosophical one, would it not? :confused:

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. ;)

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.

This rule was changed this year. It now matches the other codes.

It's happened to me, twice. This rule is also the same as other codes.

Bob, I know the rule was changed. As an IHSA Clinician, I have gone over that many times this year. It was on the books for decades though. It seems appropriate to mention when comparing the need for clarification regarding MC vs. obstruction, don't you agree? Things can change.

Regarding the ball hitting the pitching plate, it seems almost absurd that a ball could hit that piece of rubber without infield contact prior. Maybe I have been fortunate to work at fields that didn't have deep enough holes in front of the rubber. Even a speck of dirt negates the call.

They say the ball travels off some of these new bats at almost twice the velocity it was pitched. That would equate to a ball traveling to the pitching plate in less than .3 of a second for non professional ball. A blink takes .4, so discerning contact with the plate only is a pretty tough sell. Still, if you saw it happen I hope you bought a lottery ticket that day.

Be safe and enjoy your games, if you can get them in this week!

Mike

Are you sure about that?

And your sarcastic tone is Why?

rcaverly posted "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."

You responded and neither of you used the name Kyle McNeely and I certainly don't track his whereabouts.

What ever happened to that young umpire that worked in the Far East, without a Ego problem.

Well, not really sarcastic, as the smiley was supposed to convey. I was doubtful that citing McNeely as a possible source of this ruling would convince people.

Welpe, thanks my friend...it is a foul ball. This is what happens when you type replies while helping your ten year old finish his science homework. I hope he did better than I did with that messed up post!

I have never witnessed this play so I can plead a bit of ignorance. Have you ever seen it happen? Do you know of any other rules that are little used in Fed? Thanks again for not breaking out the taser for my flub. I will happily admit when I am wrong and this was one example.

Enjoy the season and I look forward to getting started with mine once this crappy weather rolls out.

Carl in his BRD references "Rumble". Truthfully, I wouldn't know either if they came up and said "hello". However, here we have a situation (MC comitted by an offensive player, and OBS by the Def. on a different Offensive player), and 8-4-2e that says MC supersedes OBS but, does not definitize if it is applicable as a result of the OF vs DEF action, or specific player action.

All I am saying is that authorataive references have played a very important part in the interpretations of Basesball Rules and I would think the name Kyle McNeely would certainly have some influence on this situation.

As I pointed out previously, I probably would never have to make this ruling but, in my attempts to be a Rule Guru (???) it would be interesting to have one correct answer.

Have a agood day

Like his predecessor, Rumble, Kyle has made some questonable rulings. When he is speaking on behalf of FED, I accept whatever he says. When he is "musing" I take some of it with a grain of salt.