Malicious contact or nothing?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Forcing the runner to do ANYTHING (without possession of the ball) is obstruction. You know that. If the runner has to react to you AT ALL, it's obstruction.

Mike beat me to the reply. As you have been informed, your suggestion is mistaken. The catcher did not force him to slide. The runner has several options, all of which have been enumerated, and chose the one which is illegal. The catcher did nothing illegal. End of story.

[Rich Ives]

So "everyone" says that the catcher didn't have the ball AND that causing the runner to alter his approach is obstruction.

Obstruction is illegal.

Then it gets suggested that the catcher did nothing illegal.

REALLY?

The catcher was flat out not positioned properly. He shares any blame for both the illegal act and the stupid positioning. You cannot stand on the tracks and blame only the train.

Off to Syracuse to listen to a university band concert with my son participating. Have a nice day.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So "everyone" says that the catcher didn't have the ball AND that causing the runner to alter his approach is obstruction.

Obstruction is illegal.

Then it gets suggested that the catcher did nothing illegal.

REALLY?

The catcher was flat out not positioned properly. He shares any blame for both the illegal act and the stupid positioning. You cannot stand on the tracks and blame only the train.

Off to Syracuse to listen to a university band concert with my son participating. Have a nice day.

Yes, Rich, really.

Rich, I don't know why you insist that the catcher did something illegal. He was positioned in foul territory after making a throw to first and does not hinder access to the plate.

Did you even read the relevant rules?
8-3-2 "If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then obstruction is ignored."

Got it? I cannot make it any clearer. The runner was safe. He acquired the base. No obstruction. END...OF...STORY.

So, now we have the issue of malicious contact.
8-3-2 then states, "Malicious contact supersedes obstruction." Even though there was no obstruction, if you insist there was, it is erased by the runner's actions.

You can insist that he the catcher did something illegal but you are wrong. That is not my opinion, it is directly from the rule book.

Enjoy the concert.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The catcher was flat out not positioned properly. He shares any blame for both the illegal act and the stupid positioning. You cannot stand on the tracks and blame only the train.

Sure you can. MC supersedes OBS.

Of course, not enough of us call OBS on these plays. So you're half right there.

[MikeStrybel]

That's a good thing since calling OBS after a player has scored would be contrary to the rules.