The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Collision, or tag avoidance?? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/13593-collision-tag-avoidance.html)

tvscrrtt Sun May 09, 2004 09:04pm

Im not an official but I have a question:

Someone fielded a ball at third base, and a runner on second plowed into him. He had atleast 60 feet to avoid fielder.

In the collision he dropped the ball, do you call interference, or was the runner trying to force the ball out, so that he wouldnt be tagged?

JRutledge Sun May 09, 2004 09:19pm

Need more information.
 
What level are you talking about?

I can kind of assume, but that would help in someone answering the question.

And could you discribe the play a little more? Was the ball already fielded when contact occured? Was the contact severe or slight?

Peace

tvscrrtt Sun May 09, 2004 09:27pm

High School level, the ball had been fielded, and the fielder had control, not bobbling or anything, but he had not fully come up to either throw or tag yet. As for sever or light contact: the fielder's collar bone was broken in two places somehow.

LDUB Sun May 09, 2004 09:39pm

That is malicious contact. The runner is ejected an he is out. Hope the third basemen gets better.

DG Sun May 09, 2004 10:49pm

I know malicious contact when I see it. When I read it, it is more difficult. If a runner runs into a fielder with the ball, and the fielder drops the ball, I may have a simple drop. If the runner runs into the fielder maliciously, I have a dead ball, out, and ejection regardless of whether the ball was dropped. The fact that the collarbone was broken on the fielder seems to imply it could have been malicious contact, but I can't tell without seeing it. At the time of the event, I can't rule malicous contact on the end result, I have to rule on what I saw. I had this situation this weekend on a play into 2B. The slide was ugly, but IMO, not malicious. Coach for the offense was arguing for MC, but IMO it was a bad slide, not MC. He said "I bet if the 2B had been injured you would have ruled malicious", and my reply was that if it had been malicious I would have ruled before I had any idea whether 2B was injured.

thumpferee Mon May 10, 2004 08:26am

DG,
Quote:

Originally posted by DG
I know malicious contact when I see it. When I read it, it is more difficult. If a runner runs into a fielder with the ball, and the fielder drops the ball, I may have a simple drop. If the runner runs into the fielder maliciously, I have a dead ball, out, and ejection regardless of whether the ball was dropped. The fact that the collarbone was broken on the fielder seems to imply it could have been malicious contact, but I can't tell without seeing it. At the time of the event, I can't rule malicous contact on the end result, I have to rule on what I saw. I had this situation this weekend on a play into 2B. The slide was ugly, but IMO, not malicious. Coach for the offense was arguing for MC, but IMO it was a bad slide, not MC. He said "I bet if the 2B had been injured you would have ruled malicious", and my reply was that if it had been malicious I would have ruled before I had any idea whether 2B was injured.

Out of curiousity, if a player has his collar bone broken due to another player not sliding or avoiding, then what is interference or malicious contact?

Hope your insurance is up to date! JMO


w_sohl Mon May 10, 2004 11:09am

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
Hope your insurance is up to date! JMO

Try to prove in court that you judgement as an umpire was the result of the MC or injury. Will, never happen. Judge will laugh them out of court.

thumpferee Tue May 11, 2004 05:23am

Quote:

Originally posted by w_sohl
Quote:

Originally posted by DG
Hope your insurance is up to date! JMO

Try to prove in court that you judgement as an umpire was the result of the MC or injury. Will, never happen. Judge will laugh them out of court.

It was my attempt at sarcasm.

The thing is, the poster said the runner was 60 feet away.

Anyone get that on video? (Another attempt at sarcasm)


w_sohl Tue May 11, 2004 08:41am

Quote:

Originally posted by thumpferee


was my attempt at sarcasm.

The thing is, the poster said the runner was 60 feet away.

Anyone get that on video? (Another attempt at sarcasm)


No disrespect intended, hope none was infered. I've just heard that response all the time and it scares younger inexpierienced officials into making incorrect calls.

JRutledge Tue May 11, 2004 09:40pm

Had to be there.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by tvscrrtt
High School level, the ball had been fielded, and the fielder had control, not bobbling or anything, but he had not fully come up to either throw or tag yet. As for sever or light contact: the fielder's collar bone was broken in two places somehow.
Malicious contact suggests intent or willingness to cause contact. You play does not quite describe that completely. You could have just two players running into each other. It is possible that maybe the runner did not see the fielder all the way. Just because the fielder broke a bone, does not mean that was a result of a runner trying to hurt him.

It is not that easy to tell you a definitive answer behind a computer screen. Because I have seen some very hard contact result in a player being hospitialized and no one did anything wrong. I had a situation a few years ago where a runner ran into a first baseman partly because of a bad throw made by the second baseman. The first baseman was knocked out before he hit the ground. And in my opinion it was obvious that the runner was not trying to go thru the fielder.

Peace

DG Tue May 11, 2004 09:52pm

I can not determine, from reading this post whether malicious contact occured. 60 feet don't mean squat, did malicious contact occur? The fact that a collarbone was broken does not help in decision. You will never know at the time of malicious contact if a serious injury was incurred. You must rule on the contact, instantly, and not based on the result. You can not rule based on whether an injury occurred because you will not know that until much later.

Like I said, I know it when I see it. For anyone who thinks I am lax on malicious contact, don't go there, because I raised two catchers in my household, and I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT. When I see it, I will be pissed when I make the call and looking around for some coaches who want to argue because I will be ready to unload on them.

[Edited by DG on May 11th, 2004 at 11:12 PM]

tiger49 Wed May 12, 2004 08:43am

Quote:

Originally posted by tvscrrtt
High School level, the ball had been fielded, and the fielder had control, not bobbling or anything, but he had not fully come up to either throw or tag yet. As for sever or light contact: the fielder's collar bone was broken in two places somehow.
and he had 60ft to avoid? Am I the only on thinking what the h*ll is taking the fielder so long?

tvscrrtt Wed May 12, 2004 08:52pm

Calm down, I said that he broke his collar bone because someone asked if it was a hard collision, why does everyone think I was implying that this fact made the contact malicious? I never even said malicious, I asked what you would call. Instead it seems that everyone assumes I said that to make it look like the base runner was out for blood.

Tiger, by 60 feet, I mean that the third baseman was about that far from 2nd when it happened. He hadnt moved forward or back in fielding, only laterally, so he didnt step from outised the basepath into it, I dont mean he had 60 feet from when the hitter made contact. The fielder had just caught the ball, and was in the process of getting to a position he could throw from, when you have as much time as you do on a shot to third, theres no reason to try and make a throw from down low, when you have plenty of time to come up and make a clean throw to first. I dont see where your pointless comment comes from.

DG Wed May 12, 2004 09:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tvscrrtt
Calm down, I said that he broke his collar bone because someone asked if it was a hard collision, why does everyone think I was implying that this fact made the contact malicious? I never even said malicious, I asked what you would call. Instead it seems that everyone assumes I said that to make it look like the base runner was out for blood.

Tiger, by 60 feet, I mean that the third baseman was about that far from 2nd when it happened. He hadnt moved forward or back in fielding, only laterally, so he didnt step from outised the basepath into it, I dont mean he had 60 feet from when the hitter made contact. The fielder had just caught the ball, and was in the process of getting to a position he could throw from, when you have as much time as you do on a shot to third, theres no reason to try and make a throw from down low, when you have plenty of time to come up and make a clean throw to first. I dont see where your pointless comment comes from.

Based on the information in your original post only, not any subsequent information, I could rule two things. One, interference on the runner for running into the 3rd baseman while he is making a play (ie setting up to throw), or two, incidental contact (ie if the 3rd baseman stepped into the path of the runner at the last instant so the runner could not avoid him). Since the original post did not mention any willful and deliberate action by the runner I don't have malicious contact, and since the fielder had the ball there can be no obstruction.

[Edited by DG on May 13th, 2004 at 09:46 PM]


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1