Play at the plate

[rcaverly]

I hate to wake up a dead horse, but I asked for an interp from my state (Ohio) through our local interpreter. They recently ruled that the two infractions (D obstructs the O; then the O MCs the D) are to be treated in the order in which they occurred in that they occurred to different runners.

So, the BR gets 1B on the obstruction by F2. R3, who was advancing on the obstruction, would have scored, except his MC prior to scoring makes him out and EJ’d by rule, one on and one out.

I do hope the NFHS clarifies soon the sentence, “Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.” I suggest it should read something to the effect of, “When an obstructed runner causes malicious contact, only the penalties for that obstruction are superseded by the penalties for the malicious contact. When one runner is obstructed and another runner causes malicious contact, the separate penalties are enforced in the order in which they occurred.”

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

I hate to wake up a dead horse, but I asked for an interp from my state (Ohio) through our local interpreter. They recently ruled that the two infractions (D obstructs the O; then the O MCs the D) are to be treated in the order in which they occurred in that they occurred to different runners.

So, the BR gets 1B on the obstruction by F2. R3, who was advancing on the obstruction, would have scored, except his MC prior to scoring makes him out and EJ’d by rule, one on and one out.

I do hope the NFHS clarifies soon the sentence, “Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.” I suggest it should read something to the effect of, “When an obstructed runner causes malicious contact, only the penalties for that obstruction are superseded by the penalties for the malicious contact. When one runner is obstructed and another runner causes malicious contact, the separate penalties are enforced in the order in which they occurred.”

A sensible interp from our home state.

Another possible clarification: “Malicious contact by a runner, including the batter-runner, supersedes obstruction of that runner.”

Don't really need much more than that, since we already have in place the principle of enforcing the penalties for multiple infractions in the order in which they occurred. The only obstacle to applying this principle to the case at hand was the (IMO erroneous) application of the "superseding" principle instead. Narrow the superseding principle and the problem goes away.

[jicecone]

Well, I am happy for the umpires in Ohio however, when the iterperters start supporting their documented interpretation with references, then I might be more inclined to agree with them. As of now, I will side with Carl.

Of course, in 28 years I have never had this play and may never see it in the next 28 yrs either.

I am not disagreeing with the Ohio ruling, I am just not yet convinced to agree.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Well, I am happy for the umpires in Ohio however, when the iterperters start supporting their documented interpretation with references, then I might be more inclined to agree with them. As of now, I will side with Carl.

Of course, in 28 years I have never had this play and may never see it in the next 28 yrs either.

I am not disagreeing with the Ohio ruling, I am just not yet convinced to agree.

I agree with your point about "never in 28 years." Still, it would be nice to iron out this wrinkle. Given its rarity, we might not get anything from NFHS.

I don't suppose it would sway your opinion to learn that Ohio's lead interpreter is Kyle McNeely, current chair of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee? Nah, didn't think so.

[MikeStrybel]

That last post has me thinking about rarely used baseball rules that have been addressed by Fed. The 4th out comes to mind.

In over 30 years of calling games I have never seen a baseball go directly from the bat, off the catcher's hands or mitt and then become a caught ball by another fielder.

I'm still waiting to see the line drive that only hits the pitching plate and then goes directly over the foul lines before passing third or first base.

The Fed addresses a bunch of rare plays. I hope they address the MC superseding obstruction one soon. Right or wrong, I would like to be able to apply it the way it is intended.

If you can think of any other rarely used rules this may be interesting. (or not...rainy day in Chicago)

Enjoy your games today.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

In over 30 years of calling games I have never seen a baseball go directly from the bat, off the catcher's hands or mitt and then become a caught ball by another fielder.

This rule was changed this year. It now matches the other codes.

I'm still waiting to see the line drive that only hits the pitching plate and then goes directly over the foul lines before passing third or first base.

It's happened to me, twice. This rule is also the same as other codes.

[MikeStrybel]

Bob, I know the rule was changed. As an IHSA Clinician, I have gone over that many times this year. It was on the books for decades though. It seems appropriate to mention when comparing the need for clarification regarding MC vs. obstruction, don't you agree? Things can change.

Regarding the ball hitting the pitching plate, it seems almost absurd that a ball could hit that piece of rubber without infield contact prior. Maybe I have been fortunate to work at fields that didn't have deep enough holes in front of the rubber. Even a speck of dirt negates the call.

They say the ball travels off some of these new bats at almost twice the velocity it was pitched. That would equate to a ball traveling to the pitching plate in less than .3 of a second for non professional ball. A blink takes .4, so discerning contact with the plate only is a pretty tough sell. Still, if you saw it happen I hope you bought a lottery ticket that day.

Be safe and enjoy your games, if you can get them in this week!

Mike

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't suppose it would sway your opinion to learn that Ohio's lead interpreter is Kyle McNeely, current chair of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee? Nah, didn't think so.

And your sarcastic tone is Why?

rcaverly posted "I hate to wake up a dead horse, but I asked for an interp from my state (Ohio) through our local interpreter. They recently ruled that the two infractions (D obstructs the O; then the O MCs the D) are to be treated in the order in which they occurred in that they occurred to different runners."

You responded and neither of you used the name Kyle McNeely and I certainly don't track his whereabouts.

What ever happened to that young umpire that worked in the Far East, without a Ego problem.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jicecone

And your sarcastic tone is Why?

Well, not really sarcastic, as the smiley was supposed to convey. I was doubtful that citing McNeely as a possible source of this ruling would convince people.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well, not really sarcastic, as the smiley was supposed to convey. I was doubtful that citing McNeely as a possible source of this ruling would convince people.

Carl in his BRD references "Rumble". Truthfully, I wouldn't know either if they came up and said "hello". However, here we have a situation (MC comitted by an offensive player, and OBS by the Def. on a different Offensive player), and 8-4-2e that says MC supersedes OBS but, does not definitize if it is applicable as a result of the OF vs DEF action, or specific player action.

All I am saying is that authorataive references have played a very important part in the interpretations of Basesball Rules and I would think the name Kyle McNeely would certainly have some influence on this situation.

As I pointed out previously, I probably would never have to make this ruling but, in my attempts to be a Rule Guru (???) it would be interesting to have one correct answer.

Have a agood day

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with your point about "never in 28 years." Still, it would be nice to iron out this wrinkle. Given its rarity, we might not get anything from NFHS.

I don't suppose it would sway your opinion to learn that Ohio's lead interpreter is Kyle McNeely, current chair of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee? Nah, didn't think so.

Like his predecessor, Rumble, Kyle has made some questonable rulings. When he is speaking on behalf of FED, I accept whatever he says. When he is "musing" I take some of it with a grain of salt.

[MikeStrybel]

I suggest that until Elliot Hopkins offers a clarification, the rule book penalty should stand. As far back as I can remember, Fed always penalizes the team causing the infraction in the worst possible way. While I agree that the separate plays should remain so, they have a history of protecting the team that suffers most.

MC supersedes obstruction.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I suggest that until Elliot Hopkins offers a clarification, the rule book penalty should stand.

1. It's not the rule book penalty, it's your (and apparently Carl's) interpretation of what "MC supersedes obstruction" means.

2. Fortunately, in Ohio, we now have a more sensible interpretation that has the force of rule.

[MikeStrybel]

Okay. I cannot argue with your need to believe what isn't there.

"You wouldn't have a game without rules, so the obvious answer is that the rules define the game."

Enjoy your season.
------------------------------------------------------

For the rest of the board, I have been wrong plenty of times in my life. I do not pretend to be an expert on all things baseball and comment only when I believe it is relevant. If Elliot Hopkins publishes a clarification of the MC rule that contradicts my thoughts about it, I will happily concede and employ the proper penalty(ies) when appropriate. This is not a contest. I have been umpiring for a few decades now and enjoy communicating with those who want to help make us all better - on the field and off. It is my hope that our discussion leads to improvements in officiating, nothing more.

Rain and 36 degrees here today. First game of the season is scheduled for tomorrow. Does Honig's sell thermo waders?

Have a great season, guys.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. It's not the rule book penalty, it's your (and apparently Carl's) interpretation of what "MC supersedes obstruction" means.

Mike, what I think is happening is two different approaches to the rule. One would be yours which is the more modern, post 2006 viewpoint. The other would be Strybel's, old, dated and pre-2005.

2. Fortunately, in Ohio, we now have a more sensible interpretation that has the force of rule.

This would be the more philosophical one, would it not?