Play at the plate

[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 Ives]

Catcher obstructs the batter then maliciously contacts the runner coming home. Then what?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

John,
Thanks for asking. I am only echoing what I see as an absolute in the rule book. There are no exceptions listed. It states that malicious contact supersedes obstruction, period. I remember when this rule was first a hot button. A guy asked our interpreter about it and we were told that the rule makes no distinction. MC is the most dangerous act taken upon a student athlete and it nullifies other calls. He said it is designed to penalize the offending team in the worst way possible. He kept saying that it was the easiest call to make. I'm not sure of that.

Draft day tomorrow for my son's 11U team. I agreed to coach them this year so I get to wear two hats again. I may need advice or plenty of Advil from you this season!

[Carl Childress]

To see how the FED treats the meaning of “supersede,” study 3-1-1 in conjunction with batting out of order.

Irwin is on third. Able should bat, but Kent bats and singles. Irwin scores.

Before a pitch to the next batter, the defense appeals that Kent was an illegal substitute, and the umpire agrees. Kent is out, and Irwin returns to third. Now Able steps up to bat.

The defense wants Able declared out because he didn't bat in proper order. They want Baker at the plate.

“No,” says the umpire. “The penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order.”

The umpire’s point: Nobody has batted out of order yet! Irwin was the last legal batter and he's on base. The next legal batter is Able.

My point: The defense can't have two outs on the play.

Ah, but there's more. The FED adopted the rigorous penalties for "illegal substitution" in 1994. The statute included this curious phrase: "If applicable, the batting out of order rules shall be enforced."

That led me to construct the following play for the 1994 BRD:

[With the bases loaded] Able should bat but illegal substitute Bubba bats and ... in (b) singles, driving in two runs, after which he is appealed before a pitch .... In (b) Bubba is out (illegal sub rule) and Able is out (batting out of order rule); the two runs are canceled and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the last pitch to Bubba. Baker is now the proper batter with two outs and the bases loaded .... Note: The idea of “two outs for one at bat” is foreign to the basic concepts of the game, which include “three up and three down.” In researching [this play], my editor [Scott Ehret] and I received conflicting information, but “two are out” was the most frequent ruling.

Kyle McNeeley, then a consultant to the Texas State Umpires Association, agreed: Two are out. [Kyle is now a permanent member of the NFHS rules committee.]

This situation lasted only until 1996, when, after listening to the BRD, the FED adopted a major change: "The penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order."

Amazing! Now I remember why I stopped posting. Too many experts with too many egos to defend.

I do not include Pete Booth in the group of ego-defenders. He quoted 8.1.1L. Pete, there's a difference. In the play in question, the MC "supersedes" the obstruction. In your play, there's no MC, so it's a simple ruling: Any runner advancing keeps his base, and the batter gets first. Sorry. Not relevant to the discussion.

[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