You make the call: NFHS game- Malicious contact at the plate?

[UNIgiantslayers]

I won’t even try to describe the play. I’ll let you watch for yourself and decide what, if anything, you’d call.

https://www.sportsgossip.com/other/i...late-collision

[bob jenkins]

MC (well, OBS first, but the MC trumps that)

[asdf]

MC

Probably the easiest call of the game.

However.........

[Rich Ives]

Big discussion here:

NFHS Malicious Contact????? - Free For All - Umpire-Empire

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Big discussion here:

NFHS Malicious Contact????? - Free For All - Umpire-Empire

Too many times the onus is put on the runner! Right Mr. Ives?

I have an F2 who has learned a valuable lesson!

I saw a rear angle on the play, and it may have changed my mind. WOW!

But in real time as PU, I most likely would have had the same call. Crew could have got together and ruled differently.

[BoomerSooner]

I can see the argument that the catcher drifting into the path of the runner was the cause for the contact and agree with this being OBS on F2. I think OBS is the right call until the moment the runner decides to level the catcher. Based on what I saw, the runner's step toward the catcher at the last moment combined with the forearms to the upper chest/neck/head area not only increased the severity of the contact but were unnecessary which leads me to believe this was MC.

Had the runner continued to widen his route to home farther into foul territory (which it appears that he did take a step in that direction), I believe the contact wouldn't have been as severe, and even if the contact were severe, I wouldn't have faulted the runner.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I can see the argument that the catcher drifting into the path of the runner was the cause for the contact and agree with this being OBS on F2. I think OBS is the right call until the moment the runner decides to level the catcher. Based on what I saw, the runner's step toward the catcher at the last moment combined with the forearms to the upper chest/neck/head area not only increased the severity of the contact but were unnecessary which leads me to believe this was MC.

Had the runner continued to widen his route to home farther into foul territory (which it appears that he did take a step in that direction), I believe the contact wouldn't have been as severe, and even if the contact were severe, I wouldn't have faulted the runner.

Unnecessary? Putting up your arms is a natural, normal way to brace for impact. Run at a wall and I betcha you'd do the same thing. I'll even let you run at a padded wall. Now suppose the wall moves into your path.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Unnecessary? Putting up your arms is a natural, normal way to brace for impact. Run at a wall and I betcha you'd do the same thing. I'll even let you run at a padded wall. Now suppose the wall moves into your path.

But putting up your arms and attempting to blast through that wall is not natural, normal, or sane. It's moronic.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Unnecessary? Putting up your arms is a natural, normal way to brace for impact. Run at a wall and I betcha you'd do the same thing. I'll even let you run at a padded wall. Now suppose the wall moves into your path.

I'll agree that I'm probably going to put my arms up to protect myself if I'm running at a wall, whether it is padded or not. I'm also going to slow down or veer to the side to avoid running directly into the wall as opposed to lowering my upper body and extending my arms in an attempt to blast my way through the wall.

The only thing that I will add, is that I will admit that in real time from the umpire's perspective, it is a tough call that I would have defended to those around me had I been a spectator (which is pretty much my default stance when watching a game).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The only thing that I will add, is that I will admit that in real time from the umpire's perspective, it is a tough call that I would have defended to those around me had I been a spectator (which is pretty much my default stance when watching a game).

The problem is that the 1BU did not get into position to see the collision. He straight-lined himself so that he couldn't see the actual impact; he could only see the catcher's back.

[Blindguy]

I have this as MC, no doubt. I think the reason we still have blatant MC in high school ball is; umpires do not enforce obstruction. If the runner gives up, or takes a route in which he is tagged out, he must be rewarded for staying within the rules.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Blindguy

I think the reason we still have blatant MC in high school ball is; umpires do not enforce obstruction.

And because umpires do not enforce ejection for malicious contact, as in this play.

[CoachPaul]

I was expecting the BU to get trucked ;-)