Malicious contact or nothing?

[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.