CO/CI with MC/INT

[grayhawk]

It's the all-acronym topic title!  This play came to mind when reading and participating in the threads about catcher's stepping on or across the plate to receive a pitch with R3 stealing or during a squeeze:

 

R3, R2 with 1 out.  The squeeze is on and both runners are moving on the pitch.  F2 steps across the plate and receives the pitch, obstructing the batter who was going to try to bunt.  Because F2 obstructed, he has R3 dead to rights.  However, R3 lowers his shoulder in an attempt to dislodge the ball and trucks F2 before reaching the plate and F2 drops the ball.

 

Ruling for Fed and OBR?

[bam]

In FED, MC supersedes all else.  You've got CI, so if R2 wasn't stealing, he stays at 2d, batter to first and R3 out.

 

OBR (at least last year), play on, playa. 

 

I think NCAA calls this an out, but in all 3 codes enforce the CI. 

[noumpere]

I think NCAA scores the run on the CI, but EJs the runner.

[maven]

In FED, MC supersedes all else.  You've got CI, so if R2 wasn't stealing, he stays at 2d, batter to first and R3 out.

 

OBR (at least last year), play on, playa. 

 

I think NCAA calls this an out, but in all 3 codes enforce the CI. 

 

For FED, I've got CO first, then INT & MC on R3. I'm also assuming R2 has not touched 3B at the TOI, so his last legally touched base is 2B.

 

The MC doesn't really supersede anything here, because the CO went against the batter, not R3. We're not excusing the CO due to the MC.

 

R3 is out and ejected. R2 goes back to 2B on R3's INT. The batter is awarded 1B on the CO, which is penalized independently of the MC/INT. (The only change from bam's ruling is that I'm sending R2 back for R3's INT, even if he was stealing — which he would otherwise get to keep as part of the penalty for the CO.)

 

Rules that use OBR with FED "slide rules" should be ruled as FED. MC & INT by R3, R2 stays at 2B, B to 1B on the CI.

 

Straight OBR has no MC rule, but it does have a new rule prohibiting crashing F2 when he has the ball. 7.13 COMMENT even mentions lowering the shoulder as evidence that would invoke this penalty. So this ruling is going to end up being the same as FED, too, except for the EJ: R3 out for trucking F2, R2 back to 2B for R3's trucking, and the B to 1B on the CI. 7.13(1)

[grayhawk]

@maven, I had the same thing as you with the exception of sending R2 back.  Seems like we are just flipping a coin to either enforce the interference or the CO/CI for R2.  Not sure there is a basis in the rules to be sure.  I don't see losing a protest either way.

[maven]

@maven, I had the same thing as you with the exception of sending R2 back.  Seems like we are just flipping a coin to either enforce the interference or the CO/CI for R2.  Not sure there is a basis in the rules to be sure.  I don't see losing a protest either way.

 

I agree that reasonable umpires can disagree here.

 

But consider this: which infraction is the more "serious," R3 trucking F2 or F2's preventing a swing? If we have to pick an enforcement for R2, which should trump?

 

Or: although there is not much scope for the idea of MC/INT "superseding" OBS here, the placement of R2 is one issue that it could resolve.

 

Or: if you enforce the penalties in the order in which the infractions occur, and apply both penalties to R2, where will he end up?

 

I confess to a bias for defense in baseball (and football, for that matter).

[grayhawk]

All reasonable points. My feeling was that R2 was awarded third already, and R3s base running infraction should not remove that award.

As I said, I don't think there is a basis in the rules to rule one way over the other, so it's hard to get it wrong. 9.01c?

[SoCal Lurker]

Maybe I'm missing something:  isn't the CO/CI witht he runner coming home also a balk? 

[grayhawk]

Maybe I'm missing something: isn't the CO/CI witht he runner coming home also a balk?

In OBR, yes.

[bam]

 

Maybe I'm missing something: isn't the CO/CI witht he runner coming home also a balk?

In OBR, yes.

 

In FED as well

[grayhawk]

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something: isn't the CO/CI witht he runner coming home also a balk?

In OBR, yes.

 

In FED as well

 

 

Nope.

[maven]

Maybe I'm missing something:  isn't the CO/CI witht he runner coming home also a balk? 

 

The only difference that would make would be to give Steve a fig leaf for his crazy notion to leave R2 at 3B.

 

Everyone else advanced, one way or another, so the balk is ignored.