Play 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.

[bob jenkins]

Except -- the batter became a BR on the CO. He can't be sent back to the plate.

I think the OP is the same as: BR bunts. F1 obstructs him. F3 fields the ball and throws to the plate. R3 MC contacts F2.

Here, we're not sending BR back to the plate, are we?

I still have R1 at first, R3 out.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Except -- the batter became a BR on the CO. He can't be sent back to the plate.

I think the OP is the same as: BR bunts. F1 obstructs him. F3 fields the ball and throws to the plate. R3 MC contacts F2.

Here, we're not sending BR back to the plate, are we?

I still have R1 at first, R3 out.

Bob:

I'm dropping out of this thread because it's become repetitive and third-world.

Supersede means instead of.

MC is penalized INSTEAD OF the obstrution: The outrageous act of the runner dissolved the penalty against the defense.

Simple play that happens often.

If you're on the field, you'd better hope the D coach doesn't know what "supersedes" means.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

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.

As pie.

Rich: I posted a reply that disappeared.

Welcome to moderation?

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.

Yes, routine, what's the buzz, eh?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

.Welcome to moderation?

There was no "moderation" of any of Carl's posts in this thread (or any other thread in the past day or so, and he hasn't been on here in quite a while before that).

[rcaverly]

I found this NFHS interp from ’09 that rules when the same player is involved in two separate infractions, the "penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred." Cannot that principle be extended to two separate infractions by other than the same player simply by ambiguous assertion?

’09 SITUATION 15: With runners at first and second and one out, the batter hits a bounding ball to left field. The runner from second touches third and is obstructed advancing to home. The obstructed runner then interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on the runner from first advancing to third base. RULING: The penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred. The runner advancing from second is awarded home. Following the enforcement for the obstruction, the interference is penalized. The runner from first is declared out and the batter-runner is returned to the base he legally occupied at the time of the interference. Had the interference been malicious in nature, the obstructed runner would be declared out in addition to the out on the runner from first. (2-22-1, 2-21-1a, 3-3-1n Penalty, 8-4-2e, 8-4-2g)

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

As pie.Welcome to moderation? Yes, routine, what's the buzz, eh?

I didn't mean to imply that Bob deleted one of my posts. My reply to Rich was deleted by one of my fat fingers, and I didn't want to take the time to recreate it.

It's been years since I took part in a rules discussion here, so I forgot there is an actual moderator.

Sorry, Bob!