Play at the plate

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"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.

It's all part of the picture. Reads like MC to me -- if the runner had time to decide how to handle the play and he went in hard to dislodge the ball in an NFHS game, I'm likely considering it MC. He had the chance to attempt to get around, slide, give himself up, or retreat.

If we had a video, this would be easier.

[Garth Vader]

bob jenkins is right, being argumentative doesn't help.

[dileonardoja]

If MC occurs before the touch of home, No run, R3 out and ejected. BR to first due to F2 obstruction

[ManInBlue]

Catcher's obstruction AND a balk according to FED rules. R3 awarded home, B awarded 1st base.

I agree with Rich on the MC - only because he made no effort to avoid contact. I agree with bob's assessment of MC, but in this sitch I'm leaning toward it due to the obvious intent to create a collision.

So, I've got R3 scoring then ejected, B on 1B. (pretty much what's been said already)

[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.