Play at the plate

[UmpJM]

jk,

What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?

Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire's judgment.

The reason I find Carl's interpretation suspect is that the only cases where one team member is held accountable/penalized for another team member's action is when a double play is possible.

While I concur that the FED takes a very dim view of MC, I do not believe it is FED's intent that the defense not be held to account in any way for their CO infraction - rather, they are only excused with regard to the offensive player who committed the MC.

If you look at the MC case plays (starting with 3.3.1V), ther is no case where other runners are "penalized" in a special way because of the MC of a different runner. (3.3.1Y has the BR out as well, but it is because of the FPSR violation rather than the MC).

I believe Carl "overreached" in his interpretation on this one.

JM

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jk,

What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?



The reason I find Carl's interpretation suspect is that the only cases where one team member is held accountable/penalized for another team member's action is when a double play is possible.

While I concur that the FED takes a very dim view of MC, I do not believe it is FED's intent that the defense not be held to account in any way for their CO infraction - rather, they are only excused with regard to the offensive player who committed the MC.

If you look at the MC case plays (starting with 3.3.1V), ther is no case where other runners are "penalized" in a special way because of the MC of a different runner. (3.3.1Y has the BR out as well, but it is because of the FPSR violation rather than the MC).

I believe Carl "overreached" in his interpretation on this one.

JM

I don't think it's Carl, I think it was Rumble back in 1988. I'll alert Carl to this thread in case he wants to respond.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think it's Carl, I think it was Rumble back in 1988. I'll alert Carl to this thread in case he wants to respond.

Rich,

After you referenced it, I checked the BRD write-up.

I'm pretty sure that Carl's reference was to a Rumble ruling that "malicious contact supersedes obstruction" prior to that text being incorporated into the text of rule 8-4-2e(1).

I am fairly certain that the interpretation Carl offers, that the R3's malicious contact of F2 completely negates ALL awards resulting from the (catcher's) obstruction of the batter, is his own.

I honestly do not believe that is the intent of the FED rule.

I find bob jenkins' cite of 9.1.1M(b) more compelling - the "maliciously contacting" runner is deprived of his award, but the other runners are not. Of course, there isn't any "obstruction' in that play, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

While FED clearly frowns on malicious contact (as jkumpire observed), I believe they also frown on Catcher's Obstruction, from both a safety and a
balance of play perspective, and I doubt their intent is to completely absolve the defense from the penalty for their infraction with regard to offensive players not involved in the malicious contact.

I'll be interested to hear Carl's response. (Should he so deign.)

JM

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jk,

What do you make of the sentence in 8-4-2e(1) which immediately follows "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."?



The reason I find Carl's interpretation suspect is that the only cases where one team member is held accountable/penalized for another team member's action is when a double play is possible.

While I concur that the FED takes a very dim view of MC, I do not believe it is FED's intent that the defense not be held to account in any way for their CO infraction - rather, they are only excused with regard to the offensive player who committed the MC.

If you look at the MC case plays (starting with 3.3.1V), ther is no case where other runners are "penalized" in a special way because of the MC of a different runner. (3.3.1Y has the BR out as well, but it is because of the FPSR violation rather than the MC).

I believe Carl "overreached" in his interpretation on this one.

JM

JM,

I am not finding your quote in the reference you cited, but that's just me I guess.

My first response to you is that MC is an 'ejectable' offense to coin a phrase, but OBS by F2 is not.

Secondly, if the ruling you are using says you can place the runner based on the judgment of the umpire, and you can "look in the mirror" after the game and say you got the call right, go for it.

*****

To our good friend and chess player Carl,

I must disagree with you on using the idea the pitch is a dead ball on MC to keep the BR at the plate. This is by definition not an illegal pitch, the pitcher did nothing wrong on the play! I like the thinking, but twisting the rules into a pretzel doesn't work for me.

[MikeStrybel]

The ball thrown by the pitcher never had a chance to be judged unless called before reaching the plate, right?

[rcaverly]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The ball thrown by the pitcher never had a chance to be judged unless called before reaching the plate, right?

In NFHS rules, the batter is afforded the unimpeded opportunity to hit a legally delivered pitch. It is obstruction if that opportunity is denied. (CB 8.1.1F, G)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

In NFHS rules, the batter is afforded the unimpeded opportunity to hit a legally delivered pitch. It is obstruction if that opportunity is denied. (CB 8-1-1F, G)

Right, so B1 is awarded first base on catcher's obstruction (NFHS terms). What's the motivation (or thinking) for keeping the batter at the plate?

[MikeStrybel]

I keep him at the dish because 8-3-2 states...MALICIOUS CONTACT SUPERSEDES OBSTRUCTION. This same ruling is repeated in 8-4-2-e(1)

As Carl stated, it is as if Obs never happened. Nowehere does the Fed rule say that the Malicious contact must involve the player who was obstructed. Until the rule changes, it seems pretty easy to enforce.

Enjoy your season!

[UmpJM]

Mike and Carl,

Both 8-3-2 and 8-4-2(e)1 deal specifically and exclusively with a runner, not a batter.

Why do you think it's appropriate to apply that language to obstruction of a batter?

JM

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

JM,

I am not finding your quote in the reference you cited, but that's just me I guess.

My first response to you is that MC is an 'ejectable' offense to coin a phrase, but OBS by F2 is not.

Secondly, if the ruling you are using says you can place the runner based on the judgment of the umpire, and you can "look in the mirror" after the game and say you got the call right, go for it.

*****

To our good friend and chess player Carl,

I must disagree with you on using the idea the pitch is a dead ball on MC to keep the BR at the plate. This is by definition not an illegal pitch, the pitcher did nothing wrong on the play! I like the thinking, but twisting the rules into a pretzel doesn't work for me.

If there was an NFHS equivalent of OBR 7.07, we wouldn't have to twist anything. This would be a balk, B1 would be awarded first base, and we'd still eject and call out R3 (Bob's case play on the home run would be appropriate because that's also a dead ball award).

No books with me, so if I'm missing the equivalent ruling in NFHS, someone will come along to correct me soon.

[UmpJM]

Rich,

No, you're not missing it - there is no equivalent to 7.07 in FED rules.

JM