Play at the plate

[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

[jkumpire]

But I have to disagree with the last few.

If I am correct about their rule-making philosophy, FED believes in 'punishing the offending team to the maximum extent of the law'.

If that is the case, in this play the batter has to stay at the plate. Obviously, Cav, et al have a great point, you have two separate infractions. But, MC is such a bad and punished play in FED, I would think the rules Committee would add on the addition penalty to the offense in this case.

This sounds like a case book play for next year's Case Book, who wants to send it on?