Obstruction Then Malicious Contact

[khrtsz]

Situation: Batter hits a drive in the gap. As he rounds first he is obstructed by F3. By the time B1 reaches 2nd base the ball is waiting for him. B1 commits a malicious slide into F6. B1 is called out and ejected. The coach of B1 contends that the delay dead ball obstruction allows for the award of 2nd base. He agrees that the contact at second did warrant the ejection, but the award should allow his replacement to be at second base. What do you think?

[CoachJM]

khrtsz,

I think the coach should read the FED rulebook. Specifically, 3-3-1n Penalty.

The malicious contact supercedes the obstruction (3.3.1R(a) ), the runner is out and ejected.

JM

[shickenbottom]

As JM has noted, MC superceedes everything in the Fed Rule book.

However, also note that if the MC occurs after a runner has scored, the run still scores and no out is recorded, only the ejection.

[CoachJM]

...

However, also note that if the MC occurs after a runner has scored, the run still scores and no out is recorded, only the ejection.

Unless .....

JM

[robbyrudd455]

Situation: Batter hits a drive in the gap. As he rounds first he is obstructed by F3. By the time B1 reaches 2nd base the ball is waiting for him. B1 commits a malicious slide into F6. B1 is called out and ejected. The coach of B1 contends that the delay dead ball obstruction allows for the award of 2nd base. He agrees that the contact at second did warrant the ejection, but the award should allow his replacement to be at second base. What do you think?

The coach would be correct in NCAA rules

[mstaylor]

Unless .....

JM


..... it's a FPSR.

[CoachJM]

..... it's a FPSR.

Give that man a cigar!

I also concur with robbyrudd's assertion regarding NCAA treatment.

JM