Play at the plate

[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?

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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

=
Rich: I like this play because it neatly proves what I've been saying.

The obstruction is NOT canceled by an offensive penalty. So, the poor defense is going to get [meat] axed.

The runner scores, the batter goes to first, the catcher is ejected. And, as I am wont to say, the umpire will restrict the assistant defensive coach.

[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!

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

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!

Congratulations on passing the background checks. Not everyone on this forum might.

[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.

[MikeStrybel]

Until Hopkins and the rules committee change the book, MC supersedes obstruction with no exceptions made. I received a PM that said I was posting a third world play and should stop it. My apologies but I simply wanted confirmation of what I told a clinic attendee. I do have a problem with the way the rule is written and maybe some debate will bring about change. For example, a batter hits a gapper and is obstructed rounding first. He holds up while R3 dumptrucks the catcher trying to score on the hit. By rule, we have an out and ejection (he didn't score first) and BR stays put at first since the obstruction penalty is ignored when MC hamstrings his team. I don't like it but that seems to be what the rule allows - no exceptions.

Off to the batting cages with my son. Thanks for the great response to the question. Enjoy your night.