Dakota: you just knew that I had to get in on this!
but SAFE? This was clearly crash interference. Absolutely no doubt about that.
Can you be sure, from the description, that this was not a retired runner? Probably was not, but we were not there.
ASA does not use the term "malicious." It uses the term "flagrant."
Though the words have different meanings, both represent an action that is way out of line with normal standards of behavior.
From Webster, Flagrant is
so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality or
usually applies to offenses or errors so bad that they can neither escape notice nor be condoned.
Malicious,
arising from malice; and malice is
desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another, intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse.
When a runner makes contact with a defender, we have three levels of increasing negative actions, with corresponding penalties.
First - an accident, when the runner had no opportunity to avoid the contact. Call wreck, or maybe obstruction.
Second runner has an opportunity to avoid contact, and does not. Call interference, and out.
Finally, the contact itself is the result of an obvious and deliberate action that is outside the normal standards of player behavior. Eject the player.
I think that too many of us are trying to drive the penalties down from the top to the lower levels.
In all three cases, contact can be violent. Players can be injured. But violent contact in itself is not malicious nor flagrant. It is the action of the runner prior to the contact that you have to judge to determine flagrant or malicious contact.
WMB