Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"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
|
If a runner had time to attempt to avoid a collision..please note, I said
ATTEMPT. Obviously, at certain points, not all things can be totally avoidable. However, if a runner has the time and
ELECTS to not try to avoid a collision and does not slide, that is intent. Any player at any age who intentionally runs into another player
MUST be made to understand that is not acceptable. In my judgment, this is also an act of unsportsmanlike conduct, and the penalty for that is to be ejected.
In ASA, the ONLY penalty for being ejected is removal from THAT game and that game only. Additional actions or the severity of the original act COULD cause a TD to impose additional sanctions, but that is beyond the situation about which we are speaking.
And please to not whine about the little girls not knowing any better. That is no reason to NOT make this sort of ruling. The umpire only has to come to this point AFTER the parents, coaches and teammates have failed. And remember, the player which could have been or was injured by this action of the same age group and just as susceptable to have her body and feelings hurt as much as the runner.