Play at the plate

[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.

[MikeStrybel]

That play apparently happened more than I believed.

I don't have a BRD. Can you please print the play and response? I have to teach the second part of their clinic next week and would like to know what it states. Thank you.

[Rich]

PLAY: Fed only. R3. The runner is moving on the pitch; B1 squares around to attempt a suicide squeeze. The catcher jumps in front of the plate to grab the pitch and tag R3, who maliciously contacts F2.

Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. F2 is guilty of obstruction. But since the "malicious crash" rule supersedes the "catcher's-obstruction rule": R3 is out and ejected. B1 remains at the plate.

Question: What about the pitch?

Answer: No pitch: It was a dead ball -- retroactively because the batter could not hit the pitch. (6-1-4)

A story follows and after the story it says: Remember, though, if R3 scored before the malicious crash, his run would have counted.

[MikeStrybel]

Thank you Rich. The plays are not exact but close enough. I've never seen this happen but it looks like it has a few times. I'm glad to see that I got it right. The back end was easier since I had an obstruction/MC call once. The catcher popped up and actually shoved the batter backwards with his glove in order to make the throw to third on an attempted steal. I would have put him on first until he took a swing at the catcher in retaliation. He got dumped and the replacement batter inherited his count.

I'm also glad to see that the father of this kid has good instincts. The call smelled. He's a decent guy and should make a good umpire. Thanks again!

[rcaverly]

I find myself seriously going against the grain here, but on this interpretation I disagree with the BRD and all the way-smarter-about-this-stuff-than-me folks who work on that fine pub. I’ve been wrong so many times before, I can’t begin to count them. And, I may be very wrong here. But, I see it differently.

I know malicious contact trumps obstruction, but only when both violations involve to the same runner: i.e.; obstruction does not give a runner license to maliciously contact a fielder during continuous action. In that case, the MC supercedes the obstruction. But, when two different runners are involved in two separate violations during the same continuous action, like in the OP, then the violations are taken in the order in which they occurred.

That said, I’ve got two separate offenses involving two separate players, so they are taken in the order that they occurred. (CB 8-3-2H)

The batter was obstructed by F2. (2-22-1)
The status of the ball was changed to delayed dead. (5-1-2b)

Ruling #1, if R3 was judged not to have made malicious contact with F2:

R3 failed to legally avoid the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him and/or deliberately knocked the ball from the fielder’s hands and would be declared out. The status of the ball would be unchanged for this base running infraction, unless interference was also ruled. (8-4-2c and/or 8-4-2r)

At the end of continuous action, the status of the ball was changed to dead ball to make awards for F2’s obstruction of the BR. (5-2-3)

There is no sane option, so none is offered. The BR would be awarded 1B and R3 would score, because he was advancing at the TOP, and his base running infraction would, in effect, be nullified. (8-1-1e)

Ruling #2, if R3 was judged to have made malicious contact with F2:

The status of the ball would be changed to dead due to R3’s malicious contact, which can neither be nullified nor ignored. (5-1-1m)

Again, there is no sane option, so none is offered. The BR would be awarded 1B because of the obstruction by F2 and R3 would score because, although unforced, he was advancing at the TOP. But, R3 must be declared out and ejected for his malicious contact. (3-3-1n, 8-1-1e)

[UmpJM]

FWIW,

I concur with rcaverly and bob jenkins and disagree with what Carl suggests in the BRD.

JM

[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.

[biggravy]

I think I follow you Carl, so what do we do with B and the count? Maybe an elementary question...

[Carl Childress]

Excellent question.

The catcher's obstruction turned the delivery into an illegal pitch.

The batter remains at the plate with a count of 1 and 0.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

Excellent question.

The catcher's obstruction turned the delivery into an illegal pitch.

The batter remains at the plate with a count of 1 and 0.

Carl,

Doesn't that contradict the ruling in the BRD play I posted above?

[rcaverly]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

The catcher's obstruction turned the delivery into an illegal pitch.

I do not agree with this interpretation within the context of NFHS rules. Were it so, would not the status of the ball be changed to dead immediately upon F1's illegal act and nullify all action that follows; specifically, the base running infraction by R3 be it MC, or not? (5-1-1k)

[MikeStrybel]

It's probably time to add a BRD to my library.

I enjoy seeing so many opinions about this play. It would be interesting to see what Hopkins has to say about it. While I am happy that Carl has agreed with my thoughts on this I appreciate so many being concerned about screwing the batter on the play just preceding the malicious contact. I'm sure that his coach will be pretty upset too but I'm keeping him at the plate and leaving the count as it was. I can't see how the coach would win an appeal based on my ruling. Maybe next year Fed will adopt the NCAA argument rule. Then all we have to say is "Coach, you can't argue this play by rule. Let's get the game moving now." I can only hope.

Thanks again for the great exchanges. Sunshine and 60 coming here next week. It won't be long.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

I do not agree with this interpretation within the context of NFHS rules. Were it so, would not the status of the ball be changed to dead immediately upon F1's illegal act and nullify all action that follows; specifically, the base running infraction by R3 be it MC, or not? (5-1-1k)

We'd never ignore malicious contact, at least the ejection portion of it.

I wish Carl had explained his source or even his reasoning for the ruling.

[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.