Play at the plate
 

High School baseball - R3 and no outs. Tie game in the bottom of the last inning, playoff game between bitter rivals. Right handed BR shows bunt on the first pitch to guage fielder response. Ball one.

With the pitcher going through a very slow windup and ignoring the lead off, R3 makes a break for home. The catcher reacts by stepping up and contacts the batter and blocks the plate prior to receiving the pitch. R3 sees this and goes in hard, standing up in an effort to dislodge the ball. The ball is dropped and R3 touches the plate.

What have you got?

First, I do not do high school (I am in Canada) so will comment on OBR only. I have catcher interference and also intentional contact (at least in my area). You add your own penalties.

CI.

Delayed dead ball. On the play, R3 is out for interference. Since B2 and R3 didn't both advance, award B2 first and R3 home. Ignore the interference.

(Of course, the coach *could* take the play, but he won't.)

Fed rules only please. I was asked this question by a coach at a clinic I held last night. He was in the stands at the game and his son was incolved in the collision (the catcher). I can tell you what was called.

Three man crew - the plate umpire ruled interference on the catcher. BR was placed on first and because he had killed the ball, R3 was returned to his original base. He disregarded the malicious contact. Neither coach was happy but both content because they each thought they escaped a blunder by their players. R3 scored on a wild pitch a batter later.

Now...

Of course it's catcher's obstruction in NFHS rules and malicious contact supersedes obstruction. Except that the obstructed player was NOT the player who caused malicious contact, so to me, that phrase is a red herring.

Without a case play from the NFHS, I would probably deconstruct the play as you did. I'd score the run on the obstruction and eject the player after awarding the bases. Award B2 first, R3 home, R3 is out for the contact, but awarded home on the CI. And ejected.

I didn't (and still don't) read MC in the OP description. Even in FED you can have a "collision" at the plate that isn't MC.

The runner sees the catcher, decides to go in standing, dislodges the ball going in hard. It's likely contact above the waist and was a planned decision according to the OP. It reads to me like MC. Regardless, the only differences in our answers involves an ejection for MC, so that part doesn't really matter, I don't think.

"Contact above the waist" is an NCAA criterion, and used to determine if the runner was attempting to reach the plate or to dislodge the ball.

Has nothing (on its own) to do with MC (or "flagrant contact" in NCAA).

If it was MC, then I agree with your answer. I'm "sure" there's some FED case where B1 hits a homerun, and MCs F3 on his way around -- score the run and EJ.

It's all part of the picture. Reads like MC to me -- if the runner had time to decide how to handle the play and he went in hard to dislodge the ball in an NFHS game, I'm likely considering it MC. He had the chance to attempt to get around, slide, give himself up, or retreat.

If we had a video, this would be easier. :D

In Fed ball, I judge a deliberate attempt to dislodge the ball when not sliding as malicious. 8-4-2c and 8-4-2e also define the runner's actions in this play.

That said, I was troubled by the play and this is what I gave him without referencing a rule book. R3 was out and ejected for MC. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction and the rule book does not differentiate whether it is on the same player or not. The BR is not awarded first and the count remains 1-0 as the pitch cannot be judged since it was killed prior. One coach will be really upset. As the father of the catcher he seemed pleased. Other umpires in attendance argued that the batter should be on first because of the catcher's obstruction.

I welcome comments as long they are constructive and not otherwise. I don't ask when I know. On this play I am not so sure. Thanks again for discussing the play.

bob jenkins is right, being argumentative doesn't help.

If MC occurs before the touch of home, No run, R3 out and ejected. BR to first due to F2 obstruction

Catcher's obstruction AND a balk according to FED rules. R3 awarded home, B awarded 1st base.

I agree with Rich on the MC - only because he made no effort to avoid contact. I agree with bob's assessment of MC, but in this sitch I'm leaning toward it due to the obvious intent to create a collision.

So, I've got R3 scoring then ejected, B on 1B. (pretty much what's been said already)

Why would you have R3 scoring if the touch occurs after the MC?

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.

I stand corrected. Provided it is malicious contact:

The play, verbatim, is in the BRD (2011 edition, play 166-328, page 224). Ruling: R3 out and ejected, B1 remains at the plate, no pitch.

So malicious contact supersedes *any* obstruction.

Interestingly enough, Carl states in the BRD that Rumble first made this interpretation in 1988 and it became NFHS rule in 1995 and that this play actually happened in a game between those two dates and the umpire scored R3 and ejected him and awarded the BR first base and nobody complained.

That play apparently happened more than I believed.

I don't have a BRD. Can you please print the play and response? I have to teach the second part of their clinic next week and would like to know what it states. Thank you.

PLAY: Fed only. R3. The runner is moving on the pitch; B1 squares around to attempt a suicide squeeze. The catcher jumps in front of the plate to grab the pitch and tag R3, who maliciously contacts F2.

Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. F2 is guilty of obstruction. But since the "malicious crash" rule supersedes the "catcher's-obstruction rule": R3 is out and ejected. B1 remains at the plate.

Question: What about the pitch?

Answer: No pitch: It was a dead ball -- retroactively because the batter could not hit the pitch. (6-1-4)

A story follows and after the story it says: Remember, though, if R3 scored before the malicious crash, his run would have counted.

Thank you Rich. The plays are not exact but close enough. I've never seen this happen but it looks like it has a few times. I'm glad to see that I got it right. The back end was easier since I had an obstruction/MC call once. The catcher popped up and actually shoved the batter backwards with his glove in order to make the throw to third on an attempted steal. I would have put him on first until he took a swing at the catcher in retaliation. He got dumped and the replacement batter inherited his count.

I'm also glad to see that the father of this kid has good instincts. The call smelled. He's a decent guy and should make a good umpire. Thanks again!

I find myself seriously going against the grain here, but on this interpretation I disagree with the BRD and all the way-smarter-about-this-stuff-than-me folks who work on that fine pub. I’ve been wrong so many times before, I can’t begin to count them. And, I may be very wrong here. But, I see it differently.

I know malicious contact trumps obstruction, but only when both violations involve to the same runner: i.e.; obstruction does not give a runner license to maliciously contact a fielder during continuous action. In that case, the MC supercedes the obstruction. But, when two different runners are involved in two separate violations during the same continuous action, like in the OP, then the violations are taken in the order in which they occurred.

That said, I’ve got two separate offenses involving two separate players, so they are taken in the order that they occurred. (CB 8-3-2H)

The batter was obstructed by F2. (2-22-1)
The status of the ball was changed to delayed dead. (5-1-2b)

Ruling #1, if R3 was judged not to have made malicious contact with F2:

R3 failed to legally avoid the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him and/or deliberately knocked the ball from the fielder’s hands and would be declared out. The status of the ball would be unchanged for this base running infraction, unless interference was also ruled. (8-4-2c and/or 8-4-2r)

At the end of continuous action, the status of the ball was changed to dead ball to make awards for F2’s obstruction of the BR. (5-2-3)

There is no sane option, so none is offered. The BR would be awarded 1B and R3 would score, because he was advancing at the TOP, and his base running infraction would, in effect, be nullified. (8-1-1e)

Ruling #2, if R3 was judged to have made malicious contact with F2:

The status of the ball would be changed to dead due to R3’s malicious contact, which can neither be nullified nor ignored. (5-1-1m)

Again, there is no sane option, so none is offered. The BR would be awarded 1B because of the obstruction by F2 and R3 would score because, although unforced, he was advancing at the TOP. But, R3 must be declared out and ejected for his malicious contact. (3-3-1n, 8-1-1e)

FWIW,

I concur with rcaverly and bob jenkins and disagree with what Carl suggests in the BRD.

JM

So many good posts
 

But I have to disagree with the last few.

If I am correct about their rule-making philosophy, FED believes in 'punishing the offending team to the maximum extent of the law'.

If that is the case, in this play the batter has to stay at the plate. Obviously, Cav, et al have a great point, you have two separate infractions. But, MC is such a bad and punished play in FED, I would think the rules Committee would add on the addition penalty to the offense in this case.

This sounds like a case book play for next year's Case Book, who wants to send it on?

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

I don't think it's Carl, I think it was Rumble back in 1988. I'll alert Carl to this thread in case he wants to respond.

There have been many points made since this was asked, but I'll answer why I stated this as my ruling (at least my thoughts at the time)

DDB - if we enforce the penalties for CO and the Balk then we can't also take the play - you get one or the other. The penalty for F2's actions is to award R3 home and B 1B. That is why I had R3 scoring. You can't over look the MC, so EJ after the award.

If we took the result of the play, I'd have him out and EJ b/c the MC was prior to the touch of home.

Note: this was my thinking when I posted. I need to re-read the posts since and decide exactly where I stand.

I think I agree with rcave now that I've had a little time to digest the whole thing.

Rich,

After you referenced it, I checked the BRD write-up.

I'm pretty sure that Carl's reference was to a Rumble ruling that "malicious contact supersedes obstruction" prior to that text being incorporated into the text of rule 8-4-2e(1).

I am fairly certain that the interpretation Carl offers, that the R3's malicious contact of F2 completely negates ALL awards resulting from the (catcher's) obstruction of the batter, is his own.

I honestly do not believe that is the intent of the FED rule.

I find bob jenkins' cite of 9.1.1M(b) more compelling - the "maliciously contacting" runner is deprived of his award, but the other runners are not. Of course, there isn't any "obstruction' in that play, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

While FED clearly frowns on malicious contact (as jkumpire observed), I believe they also frown on Catcher's Obstruction, from both a safety and a
balance of play perspective, and I doubt their intent is to completely absolve the defense from the penalty for their infraction with regard to offensive players not involved in the malicious contact.

I'll be interested to hear Carl's response. (Should he so deign.)

JM

High School baseball - R3 and no outs. Tie game in the bottom of the last inning, playoff game between bitter rivals. Right handed BR shows bunt on the first pitch to guage fielder response. Ball one.

With the pitcher going through a very slow windup and ignoring the lead off, R3 makes a break for home. The catcher reacts by stepping up and contacts the batter and blocks the plate prior to receiving the pitch. R3 sees this and goes in hard, standing up in an effort to knock the ball loose. The ball is dropped and R3 touches the plate.

A regular on The Forum asked me to comment.

1. Contact above the waist and/or an attempt to dislodge the ball have never been published by the FED as elements of malicious contact. Their main criterion is that MC occurs when a “runner is deliberately attempting to injure the player.” (FED POE, 1988) That has always seemed absurd to me. We all know that players, except in rare cases of retaliation, crash into the catcher to knock the ball loose. My chapter in Texas adopted the NCAA definitions. (At my insistence, I might add.)

2. MC supersedes obstruction, as someone pointed out.

3. To me, this is a routine play: Call “That’s obstruction!” when the catcher interferes with the batter. It’s a delayed dead ball. Then, after the contact, call “Time! That’s malicious contact!” Signal the player is out and ejected. Don’t forget to wave off the run. If there had been other runners, they would return to the bases occupied at the time of the contact.

4. Those are the proper mechanics. But I recommend that the umpire, after he calls “time,” beckon both coaches to the plate. He should explain quietly what the ruling is. The presence of the defensive coach would serve to dampen the "enthusiasm" of the offense. They’re both professionals. Likely, Coach O wouldn’t want to look like a jerk in front of Coach D during a calm discussion at the plate.

I think I follow you Carl, so what do we do with B and the count? Maybe an elementary question...

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

good thread
 

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.

The ball thrown by the pitcher never had a chance to be judged unless called before reaching the plate, right?

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.

Rich,

No, you're not missing it - there is no equivalent to 7.07 in FED rules.

JM

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?

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.

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!

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

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

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!

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

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

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).

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)

CO

Since the ball was NOT hit and the batter NEVER became a runner the ball is dead at that point. Score R3 and put B1 at first base.

here's a case play for illustration.

FED case play 8.1.1L

R3 trying to score on a steal or squeeze play. F2 obstructs the batter's swing.

RULING:

Defensive OBS R3 awarded home and B1 to first base.

COMMENT: If F2 or any other defensive player obstructs the batter BEFORE he has become a runner the batter is awarded first base. If on such OBS a runner is trying to score by a steal or squeeze from third, R3 is awarded home and B1 to first base.

Therefore, in the OP the umpire would signal TIME since B1 NEVER became a runner and theoretically the MC would not have occured because R3 would have stopped when he saw the umpire call TIME.

Here is another case play to illustrate.

FED case play 8.1.1G

R3. After F1 winds up R3 starts home. F3 playing in cuts off the pitch and tags R1.

RULING: OBS. The ball becomes dead when touched by F3. R3 awarded home and the BR to first.

In a nutshell when B1 does NOT hit the ball and thus does not become a runner, the ball is dead at that point and the CO enforced. That in itself does not give a runner carte blanche to MC another player but if the player sees the call of TIME for the most part the MC will be prevented.

Pete Booth

Batting out of order and an illegal substitute
 

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: 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.

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!

Carl,

So now you're saying malicious contact does NOT always supersede obstruction? :confused:

JM

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.

No, I'm saying what I said, JM.

Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction when each team violates.

Good lord, if what you're implying would be true, a catcher could maliciously tag the runner just to keep the batter off first.

Lah, me.

Adios, all!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.;)This would be the more philosophical one, would it not? :confused:

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. ;)

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.

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

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

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

Are you sure about that?

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.

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.

Welpe, thanks my friend...it is a foul ball. This is what happens when you type replies while helping your ten year old finish his science homework. I hope he did better than I did with that messed up post!

I have never witnessed this play so I can plead a bit of ignorance. Have you ever seen it happen? Do you know of any other rules that are little used in Fed? Thanks again for not breaking out the taser for my flub. I will happily admit when I am wrong and this was one example.

Enjoy the season and I look forward to getting started with mine once this crappy weather rolls out.

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

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.

Even if we got the top authorities together, it is doubtful that they would agree on everything, so it may not be possible to have 'one correct answer'. But yes, it would be good to have such a one. In the meantime, discussions such as this one make me re-evaluate my initial conclusion, and to be honest, I'm not sure now which interpretation I favor!

Really? I mean, really?

I'm not sure what your concern is.

I'm always curious as to how the various states select their "clinicians", how many they select and what what official status they give to their clinicians' rulings.

It seems to differ drastically from states who have one appointed clinician to states where anyone who raised their hand is a clinician.

Quite honestly I'm surprised that someone who had been out of FED umpiring for any period of time would appointed a state clinician upon his/her return without spending some time to get back into the activity. But, different strokes.

Thanks for asking. I was asked to be an IHSA clinician eight years ago. The IHSA trains us to train the umpires registered with our state association. They mandate and certify our training sessions. The IHSA has taken great steps to improve the mechanics used by umpires and communicate changes as they happen. I take great pride in what I do for the IHSA. Each of our clinics is rated and we are retained based on performance.

While I spent time abroad, I was heavily involved in umpire training and rule interpretation the entire time. I will tell you more in a PM if you would like. I see that even a brief mention of one's experience can be considered bragging and that was not my goal. I apologize of any of you thought I was. I make mistakes and try to learn from them.

Best wishes. I am off to vacation with my family for the kids' Spring Break. I won't miss the snow.

1 person got it right... this is exact play is in the rule book.. But it is catcher INT..LOL But with the Balk, the plays is dead, so the contact at the plate will mean nothing.. except I will let the coach know ( if in the umpires judgment that it was MC, he can be EJ)