|
"I called her out and ejected for malicious contact. She didn't lower her shoulder, but from what I saw she had time to avoid."
Why is everybody so anxious to eject these kids from a ball game. Depending on the organization, that can be one hell of a penalty. We recently had a girl lose most of four games because of an ill-advised ejection. (She lost that game and the rest of the day - 2nd game of DH, and the next day of play - also a DH.)
The ASA (and NFHS) rule is very clear; runner stays on her feet and crashes into defender, runner is out for interference. Period! OUT.
Now if the contact is Flagrant (ASA) or Malicious (NFHS) then you have a new ruling, separate from the interference call. Now the penalty is ejection (USC).
But what is Flagrant? ASA does not define it. Mcrowder has decided that flagrant means that, in his opinion, the runner had time to avoid the contact. So what? If the runner had time to avoid, and did so, we would not have an interference call. But she didn't. So we call INT and call her out. But flagrant? Webster defines flagrant as:
"so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality" or " conspicuously bad or objectionable. FLAGRANT applies usually to offenses or errors so bad that they can neither escape notice nor be condoned"
This sounds pretty serious. It fits in with the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact as "an act involving excessive force with an opponent."
To find for Flagrant or Malicious Contact, I need to see a deliberate action that indicates contact with the opponent without regard for that opponent's welfare or safety. If a player deliberately wants to hit someone, they will protect themselves first. They will lower a shoulder, tuck in the head, or hold the arms out as a battering ram. If a girl is not protecting herself, that action is probably accidental contact. Accidental contact can be cause for interference, but no matter how severe, it should never be grounds for ejection.
WMB
|