Quote:
Originally posted by dvellison
I would have to say that alot of people don't know the definition of malice. Malice means "with intent to cause injury". In this case it would mean that Erstad's sole intention was to injure another player. I can't see how anyone who has ever played any sport could say that it's not every players responsibility to make every effort to win on every play. That's exactly what Erstad was doing. Had Erstad not scrambled back to touch the plate, I might be willing to say he didn't care about the run and he only wanted to injure the catcher. I'm sorry, that's just not what happened.
Only a Braves fan would say that he made contact with the sole intention to injure rather than the intention of scoring a run.
THE ONLY PURPOSE OF A BASERUNNER IS TO SCORE. THIS IS HIS INTENT.
|
The Webster's definition of the word malice is irrelevant. The definition of malicious contact in a baseball context is, by necessity, an interpretation. And if MLB has such a rule, this would be the picture-postcard interpretation of malicious contact. In NCAA and in NFHS, this would be a no brainer ejection. In MLB, the reponse is a shrug by the umpire followed by a fastball to somebody's a$$.