Play at the plate

[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.