Play at the plate

[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)

[dileonardoja]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

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

Why would you have R3 scoring if the touch occurs after the MC?

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

Why would you have R3 scoring if the touch occurs after the MC?

There have been many points made since this was asked, but I'll answer why I stated this as my ruling (at least my thoughts at the time)

DDB - if we enforce the penalties for CO and the Balk then we can't also take the play - you get one or the other. The penalty for F2's actions is to award R3 home and B 1B. That is why I had R3 scoring. You can't over look the MC, so EJ after the award.

If we took the result of the play, I'd have him out and EJ b/c the MC was prior to the touch of home.

Note: this was my thinking when I posted. I need to re-read the posts since and decide exactly where I stand.

[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.

[Rich]

I stand corrected. Provided it is malicious contact:

The play, verbatim, is in the BRD (2011 edition, play 166-328, page 224). Ruling: R3 out and ejected, B1 remains at the plate, no pitch.

So malicious contact supersedes *any* obstruction.

Interestingly enough, Carl states in the BRD that Rumble first made this interpretation in 1988 and it became NFHS rule in 1995 and that this play actually happened in a game between those two dates and the umpire scored R3 and ejected him and awarded the BR first base and nobody complained.

[Carl Childress]

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 knock the ball loose. The ball is dropped and R3 touches the plate.

A regular on The Forum asked me to comment.

1. Contact above the waist and/or an attempt to dislodge the ball have never been published by the FED as elements of malicious contact. Their main criterion is that MC occurs when a “runner is deliberately attempting to injure the player.” (FED POE, 1988) That has always seemed absurd to me. We all know that players, except in rare cases of retaliation, crash into the catcher to knock the ball loose. My chapter in Texas adopted the NCAA definitions. (At my insistence, I might add.)

2. MC supersedes obstruction, as someone pointed out.

3. To me, this is a routine play: Call “That’s obstruction!” when the catcher interferes with the batter. It’s a delayed dead ball. Then, after the contact, call “Time! That’s malicious contact!” Signal the player is out and ejected. Don’t forget to wave off the run. If there had been other runners, they would return to the bases occupied at the time of the contact.

4. Those are the proper mechanics. But I recommend that the umpire, after he calls “time,” beckon both coaches to the plate. He should explain quietly what the ruling is. The presence of the defensive coach would serve to dampen the "enthusiasm" of the offense. They’re both professionals. Likely, Coach O wouldn’t want to look like a jerk in front of Coach D during a calm discussion at the plate.

[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.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by 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)

1 person got it right... this is exact play is in the rule book.. But it is catcher INT..LOL But with the Balk, the plays is dead, so the contact at the plate will mean nothing.. except I will let the coach know ( if in the umpires judgment that it was MC, he can be EJ)