contact and interference

[Rbn3]

Runner on second with one out in a 14 year old tournament governed by "major league rules" except that sliding or "valid" attempt to avoid contact required by tournament rules. Ball is hit between second and first into right field. Throw to the plate beats runner who hits catcher shoulder first..catcher holds ball and runner at plate is called out. Batter/runner advances to second while cather (injured on the play) is on the ground.

What's the call, if any? Does "intent" of the runner hitting catcher matter?

[DG]

Shoulder first does not sound like "slide" or "avoid" as per tournament rules and in fact, sounds like malicious contact. From what is described I would call out, malicious contact, eject, dead ball, and runners advance no further than they were at time of infraction, which would probably send batter-runner back to first. But I know, you would have to see it to be sure of ruling, and I am only going on what is written, ie "shoulder first". That may be fine in OBR but not where slide or avoid rules are in place.

[David B]

Originally posted by Rbn3
except that sliding or "valid" attempt to avoid contact required by tournament rules.

What's the call, if any? Does "intent" of the runner hitting catcher matter?

Intent does matter, but that's entirely umpire's judgement.

What the runner did does not sound like what you described above, so penalize it according to the rules of the tournament.

What is the penalty for not making an attempt to avoid contact? That would be the call I would think in this situation.

Thanks
DAvid

[jicecone]

Ok gentlemen, how can you be so fast to call malicious contact? Did the play happen AT the plate. Did the runner lower his shoulder.? How do two humans possibly meet at the same point on the field and NOT avoid contact? Did the catcher initiate the contact by trying to tag the runner?This is not a play at first either.

When are we going to start using some common sense here and realize that slide or avoid contact does NOT MEAN, "NEVER THE TWO SHALL MEET".

I agree ,the rule says nothing about intent and it is not part of the criteria used to make up your mind. However , how come everyone is always so fast to want to throw someone out of the game? Is this what is being taught now days. When in doubt, throw them out!

[Rbn3]

On the play in question the catcher was at the plate and recived the throw from the outfield well before the contact, in time to glance at the runner going to second before the contact.


That Pete Rose play is not permitted in youth baseball anywhere I have seen it played. "Intent" should govern ejection, but what about interference? If the kid's spikes catch and he "accidently" hits the catcher head on it might not require ejection but isn't it interference?

OBR: "Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his team mate."

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Lowering the shoulder to intentionally hit a defender who has the ball is pretty much malicious contact. Out. Ejection. Send R2 back to 1st if he wasn't to 2nd already.

Jicecone, I'm not anxious to eject but I am anxious to protect players. Football tactics for getting into the endzone don't belong in any level of baseball besides that level of players that get paid big money for sacraficing thier health and well being (professional).

Of course HTBT, but that description sounds like malicious intent. The same collision after a trip would be incidental because the runner did not intentionally lower his shoulder and intentionally create the collision.

[jicecone]

And I agree, the safety of the players should come first but the original thread did NOT say that the runner lowered his shoulder and I did' take it that way. Now if that is what happened then by all means send the boy home.

""Intent" should govern ejection,".

No, the action of the player shall govern ejection. We can not determine what the player intended to do, only what has happened.

[David B]

Originally posted by jicecone
And I agree, the safety of the players should come first but the original thread did NOT say that the runner lowered his shoulder and I did' take it that way. Now if that is what happened then by all means send the boy home.

""Intent" should govern ejection,".

No, the action of the player shall govern ejection. We can not determine what the player intended to do, only what has happened.

I agree with that and last week on a similiar play I listed a whole group of plays in which it outlined it pretty well from the BRD.

But, the players actions often signify intent to me. He can hit him bump him, plow into him etc., but if he lowers a head or shoulder, or extends the arms etc., then he's shown his intent.

Intent is not the guideline, but IMO it helps if we are able to decipher. Many times we are not and have to use our gut reaction.

That would be different for every umpire I'm sure.

Thanks
DAvid

[DG]

Originally posted by jicecone
And I agree, the safety of the players should come first but the original thread did NOT say that the runner lowered his shoulder and I did' take it that way. Now if that is what happened then by all means send the boy home.

""Intent" should govern ejection,".

No, the action of the player shall govern ejection. We can not determine what the player intended to do, only what has happened.

The original post said "Throw to the plate beats runner who hits catcher shoulder first". Unless he tripped, shoulder first is malicious IMO.

[scyguy]

in FED rules, if contact is made and it is not malicious, do we not kill it anyway? Runner interference and send runner back to first if he had not reached 2nd at time of interference?

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by scyguy
in FED rules, if contact is made and it is not malicious, do we not kill it anyway? Runner interference and send runner back to first if he had not reached 2nd at time of interference?

There is a whole level of play never approaching malicious.

Incidental contact - play on, independent of the violence of the contact. This is where 98% of play resides.

Intentional contact - HTBT but likely a dead ball and yes the above penalties you mention. Maybe another 1.5% of play

Malicious contact - dead ball, ejection, possible removal of just scored run (Force Play Slide Rule). Last 0.5% of play.

I just guessed at the percentages but the vast majority of contact is incidental and play continues.

[Rbn3]

I was there and I can't honestly say whether the kid "caught his spikes" and hit the catcher hard with his shoulder/body accidently or whether he could see that he was going to be out and did a "stand up" slide to pull a Pete Rose.

But I think there should have been some penalty imposed for the contact, since contact is supposed to be avoided. Interfernce does not require intent, I think we all agree on thatpoint. It would seem to be that the instant the runner is tagged out, any action that he takes, intentional or unintentional is interference. Was the catcher in the act of throwing to second? No. Would he have been able to throw out the runner at second if he had been not bowled over? Maybe.

But the OBR would seem to demand that the runner going to second be called out because of the interference of his team mate. This would have resulted in a double play as the runner was tagged out at home.

[David B]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Just to ensure that no one misunderstands: A just-"scored" run can be removed even in a non-force play situation. In fact, this seems usually to be the case in malicious contact at home plate. [/B]

You're talking OBR only right? In FED if he scores and then makes malicious contact we count the run.

Rule 3-1 (penalty)

thanks
DAvid

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by David B

You're talking OBR only right? In FED if he scores and then makes malicious contact we count the run.

Rule 3-1 (penalty)

thanks
DAvid [/B]

Sorry about that, I wanted to reduce confusion and I just made it worse! Yes, by 3-1-1n PEN, if such a runner already scored in FED, he is ejected for his malicious contact but not out. If a runner begins malicious contact before scoring, then he will be out. I was thinking that when a runner touches the plate DURING his malicious contact, then he is out and his run does not count. I will delete my earlier post to avoid any further confusion.

P-Sz

[DG]

Originally posted by Rbn3
I was there and I can't honestly say whether the kid "caught his spikes" and hit the catcher hard with his shoulder/body accidently or whether he could see that he was going to be out and did a "stand up" slide to pull a Pete Rose.

But I think there should have been some penalty imposed for the contact, since contact is supposed to be avoided. Interfernce does not require intent, I think we all agree on thatpoint. It would seem to be that the instant the runner is tagged out, any action that he takes, intentional or unintentional is interference. Was the catcher in the act of throwing to second? No. Would he have been able to throw out the runner at second if he had been not bowled over? Maybe.

But the OBR would seem to demand that the runner going to second be called out because of the interference of his team mate. This would have resulted in a double play as the runner was tagged out at home.

First of all, Pete Rose into Ray Fosse is textbook example of malicious contact at all levels below professional. There was nothing "stand up" about that "slide". Second, I see no reason to call out the BR going to 2B. He just needs to go back to 1B.