|
Malicious contact, IMO, is intentional and violent. The NFHS words are Excessive Force. If a runner stays on her feet, and has, in my judgment, plenty of time to avoid the defender, but makes no effort to minimize the contact, then I will call malicious contact.
I will give the runner the benefit of doubt that she may not recognize the collision situation and, if at the last possible instant she attempts to avoid or minimize the contact, then I will fall back on the illegal contact rule and call her out for interference (but not malicious, and thus no ejection).
However the defender must be in the immediate act of making a play on the runner. The ball must have left another defenders hand and must be on the way to the catcher, or at her, or past her. If that is not true, then I cannot call interference.
The above assumes that the defender is stationary and has not suddenly moved into the path of the runner, thus making the avoidance of contact difficult.
Ive always felt the NFHS tends to favor the runner, and Mary Struckhoffs obstruction interpretations last year support that. For years the NFHS casebook had a play (8.4.3[D]) where a runner can push aside an obstructing defender (if not malicious) and not be penalized.
I wish that all umpires would call all obstruction in all games. Then players will learn to trust the umpires and they will attempt to avoid all contact with an obstructing defender, knowing they will get the call. Once they are trained, our job becomes easier.
WMB
|