Need a little clarification

[David B]

Originally posted by thumpferee
I agree with the last two posts as well as many others. The thing I would like to make clear is there are rules which we as officials are responsible to make. As the original poster stated, Little League Rules. If the fielder has the ball, which in his situation seemed clear he did, contact was made because the runner failed to avoid, and knocked the ball out of the fielders hands who had the ball in his possession. In FED, it is within a step if I'm not mistaken. In Little League players must learn how to slide and when they need to slide (or avoid). There is nothing incidental about NOT sliding. SLIDE OR AVOID or be called out. If we all want to get on the same page here, interpret the rules the way they were meant to be interpreted. Incidental contact is where the throw is astray and contact occurs before either has a chance to avoid contact In this thread, the runner had his chance to avoid contact and slide but did not. There is nothing incidental bout that.

I should have stated HS ball. I would think the FPSR would have given that away but I failed to state that.

I found several good case plays in the BRD that pretty much covers much of what we have discussed.

THIS IS HIGH SCHOOL BALL!!

RUMBLE: Umpires should not use the force of the crash as the criterion for judging malicious contact: The severity of the contact is not a gauge for determining malicious contact, because there are times ... when the contact is unavoidable. (News #3, 3/93) {See 275.}

Play 124-312: FED only. R1: The runner tries to score on B1's double. The catcher, seeing the throw from the cutoff man in the outfield is going to be up the line toward third, moves five or six steps up the line and obstructs R1, who maliciously runs into him and manages to score. Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. Though F2 is guilty of obstruction, that infraction is ignored: R1 is out, ejected and his run does not count.


Note 298: On the other hand, the 1995 clarification has been recently unclarified. The Rules Committee is concerned that all collisions are being ruled malicious contact, pointing out that a violent collision may occur and be ruled incidental contact with no penalty to either offense or defense. The umpire should rule on the runner's intent: It's a malicious crash if he uses intentional excessive force or intends to injure the fielder. (Points of Emphasis, 1997 ed) BRD recommends: When the runner has time to get down, and doesn't if the fielder is knocked off his feet, don't worry about intent; call it a malicious crash and eject the runner.


Play 125-312: FED only. R2: The runner tries to score on B1's single to right. The throw causes the catcher to leave the baseline and move two or three steps away from the plate. Gloving the throw, he runs toward the plate to tag the charging runner, who does not slide. After a violent collision, the ball is jarred free, and R2 rolls over to touch home, untagged. Ruling: Regardless of how rough the collision was, it is not malicious contact.

Thanks
David