Interference then Collision-Did they get it right

[Rolliedogg]

Runner on 1st. Batter hits the ball into the gap. High School game.Runner of 1st attempts to score from 1st on the hit. As the runner approaches home, the catcher is set-up about 3-4ft up the line towards third. The pitcher is in the area and actually starts inching is way into the basepath about 6ft up the line(2 or 3ft from the catcher). The runner and pitcher make contact, enough that the runner is slowed. In another step or two, the runner and catcher collide. Bang Bang play hard to tell if the catcher touches runner, but catcher holds onto the ball as both runner and catcher tumble to the ground. Defensive manager complains, umpires conference, offesnive manager complains. The final ruling was that run scores due to interference by the pitcher, no out recorded. Runner is ejected for not avoiding contact with catcher. Player must now also miss the next game due to ejection.

Once interference occurs is this a dead ball and would that cancel anything that happens afterwards that is part of the play. The intention of the runner was that he would have slid wide and reached for the plate with his hand. But once the pitcher interfered, he had no where else to go. Opinions??

[Ump Rube]

In FED: You would score the run on interference (delayed dead-ball), but the issue that comes up is the ejection. If you are ejecting R1 for contact with F2, then it is most likely Malicious Contact. In case, there is an immediate dead-ball and R1 is ejected, no run scores.

Seems like it is a HTBT. If R1 stumbled around F1 and fell into F2: INT, +1 run, 0 outs. If R1 moved around F1 and ran into F2 then: most likely MC, EJ-R1, +1 out, 0 runs.

[mbyron]

There are four possible outcomes to this play.

1. Train wreck: everyone is doing what he should be, throw pulls catcher into runner's path as he tries to avoid contact. Ruling: play the bounce.

2. Obstruction: catcher (or any fielder) sets up in the base path denying access to the base without the ball. The runner must still slide or try to avoid contact with the fielder. Ruling: delayed dead ball until end of playing action, award runner home.

3. Interference: runner fails to slide or try to avoid contact with fielder, but the contact is not severe enough to be malicious contact. Ruling: immediate dead ball, runner is out whether or not he scores on the play.

4. Malicious contact: runner crashes the catcher intentionally. Ruling: immediate dead ball, runner is out (if he didn't score first) and ejected.

Which of these applies is, of course, umpire judgment. It's difficult to assess anyone's ruling on a play without seeing the play.

That said, obstruction and malicious contact could conceivably be combined here, if one fielder obstructed the runner, who subsequently maliciously contacted a different fielder. That's apparently what the umpires ruled.

However, I would not have made the award they did: malicious contact by rule supersedes obstruction, and the runner should have been called out if the MC occurred before he scored, in addition to being ejected.

We had another thread recently with both MC and OBS, but the difference was that in that case the MC was not caused by the obstructed runner (the batter was obstructed, and R3 committed the MC). In that case, I argued for enforcing both penalties against the different runners.

In this case, it's the same runner tangling with different fielders. Given that it's the same runner, I believe that the principle that "malicious contact supersedes obstruction" applies: being obstructed does not give the runner the right to crash the catcher.

[TwoBits]

Agree with MB.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

There are four possible outcomes to this play.

1. Train wreck: everyone is doing what he should be, throw pulls catcher into runner's path as he tries to avoid contact. Ruling: play the bounce.

Under Fed rules, I was under the impression that this type of play should be ruled obstruction. Am I mistaken?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Under Fed rules, I was under the impression that this type of play should be ruled obstruction. Am I mistaken?

It could be OBS and could be a train wreck. IT's more likely to be OBS under FED than under other codes, though.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Under Fed rules, I was under the impression that this type of play should be ruled obstruction. Am I mistaken?

You might be thinking of 8.3.2 SITUATION K, which rules OBS on a wide throw at 1B.

But I think that the implication of the ruling of the following play is that F2 may be in the baseline if the throw draws him there. I've highlighted the relevant passage.

8.3.2 SITUATION I: R1 is attempting to score from third and F8 throws the ball
to F2. F2 is four or five feet down the line between home and third, but is not actually
able to catch the ball in order to make the tag. R1, rather than running into F2,
slides behind F2 into foul territory and then touches home plate with his hand.
After R1 slides, F2 catches the ball and attempts to tag R1 but misses. The coach
of the offensive team coaching at third base claims that obstruction should have
been called even though there was no contact. RULING: Obstruction. Contact does
not have to occur for obstruction to be ruled. F2 cannot be in the baseline without
the ball if it is not in motion and a probable play is not going to occur, nor can he
be in the baseline without giving the runner access to home plate.

As I read this play (a lot of negatives in that one clause!), it conflicts with 8.3.2 SITUATION K: if F2 is never permitted in the baseline without the ball (as seems to be the principle of Sit. K), then what is the point of this clause? The only interpretation that makes sense is that we're not to rule OBS when the throw takes F2 up the line.

I'm not sure what to make of this apparent conflict.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not sure what to make of this apparent conflict.

My take is that if the action "denies access to the base" then it's OBS, if it doesn't, then it isn't.

No, I don't like the rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My take is that if the action "denies access to the base" then it's OBS, if it doesn't, then it isn't.

No, I don't like the rule.

I agree that's how to make sense of Sit. K.

What's goofy is that the point of Sit. I seems to be that you can have OBS without contact. So non-contact denies access to the base? That ruling seems to me to go back to the language of "hindering" the runner, rather than denying access.

I agree that we should have a lower bar for OBS in FED-ball than non-FED. I'm just not sure on what basis to determine when contact constitutes OBS, consistent with these 2 case plays.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So non-contact denies access to the base?

It might and it might not. It depends on the contact and what happens to the runner.

[MD Longhorn]

In any case, it's the catcher that's fielding the thrown ball, and the obstruction was on the pitcher. F1 wasn't allowed to be there at all (unless HE was the one fielding the throw, of course). I have an EASY OBS on this play. The MC is HTBT but I have trouble coming up with a way to keep the run AND eject the runner. I think they missed in one direction or the other here.

[Adam]

I'm probably thinking about this wrong, but isn't the run "awarded" so that anything that happens after would be punished after the awarding of the run? I'm probably thinking about this too much like a basketball official, though, so feel free to dismiss my question if that's the case.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Regarding the play in the OP. I believe that the contact between R1 and F2 is a HTBT situation.

BUT, lets (make an) a$$ (of) u (and) me that R1 was running full bore toward HP when F1's illegal contact knocks him off stride. Even if R1 is no more that two strides away from HP when the illegal contact by F1 occurs, it could be enough to cause R1 not to recover from the illegal contact in time to control his movement toward HP and thereby avoid a violent collision with F2 that is not MC.

Just my two cents worth.

MTD, Sr.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm probably thinking about this wrong, but isn't the run "awarded" so that anything that happens after would be punished after the awarding of the run? I'm probably thinking about this too much like a basketball official, though, so feel free to dismiss my question if that's the case.

Not exactly. The base is awarded, but the runner is still required to run the bases legally (esp. in this context, no MC).

And the ball is live, so subsequent action counts.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Regarding the play in the OP. I believe that the contact between R1 and F2 is a HTBT situation.

BUT, lets (make an) a$$ (of) u (and) me that R1 was running full bore toward HP when F1's illegal contact knocks him off stride. Even if R1 is no more that two strides away from HP when the illegal contact by F1 occurs, it could be enough to cause R1 not to recover from the illegal contact in time to control his movement toward HP and thereby avoid a violent collision with F2 that is not MC.

Just my two cents worth.

MTD, Sr.

If the second collision is a result of the runner not having control of himself as a result of the first, then there cannot be MC.