interference/obs

[Sal Giaco]

In NCAA, the fielder must have the ball in order to block the base. If not, it is obstruction

In PRO ball, the act of fielding is determined by a thrown ball being "near enough and toward" the fielder who is receiving it.

A play, by definition, requires a ball and a runner.

All three of these things need to be considered when defining whether a play is imminent or not.

[scyguy]

Had a play last year in quarters of district HS tourn. I am the BU, R3 comes down line toward home, catcher zips ball to 3B and gets runner in rundown. I communicate with PU that I have 3B side, he stays with home side. R3 is advancing toward home, 3B tosses ball toward catcher. R3 dives head first toward the infield side to try and get around catcher. Contact occurs about the time the ball gets to the catcher. Right shoulder of R3 hits catcher with enough force to put catcher on his tail. Ball comes loose. Catcher hits his head on field and is down. Blood is visible on back of head.

Now, PU kills it and calls the runner out and ejects him for malicious contact. From where I was standing, I felt that the runner was trying to avoid contact and get around the catcher. He made his call, maybe he saw something that I did not see. Whatever the case, my immediate focus was keeping the 3B coach from my partner.

Now, according to what I am reading on this thread, this is a no call situation. Contact by runner was not intentional. Correct?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by scyguy
Had a play last year in quarters of district HS tourn. I am the BU, R3 comes down line toward home, catcher zips ball to 3B and gets runner in rundown. I communicate with PU that I have 3B side, he stays with home side. R3 is advancing toward home, 3B tosses ball toward catcher. R3 dives head first toward the infield side to try and get around catcher. Contact occurs about the time the ball gets to the catcher. Right shoulder of R3 hits catcher with enough force to put catcher on his tail. Ball comes loose. Catcher hits his head on field and is down. Blood is visible on back of head.

Now, PU kills it and calls the runner out and ejects him for malicious contact. From where I was standing, I felt that the runner was trying to avoid contact and get around the catcher. He made his call, maybe he saw something that I did not see. Whatever the case, my immediate focus was keeping the 3B coach from my partner.

Now, according to what I am reading on this thread, this is a no call situation. Contact by runner was not intentional. Correct?

"Trying to avoid contact" and actually avoiding, can be to different things.

I'm sure it was one of these had to be there situations however, it does'nt seem as if this player was trying hard enough. I would have to error on the side of safety for this one. Sometimes you got to go with your gut feelings.
Which just might save you problems latter in the game , for not calling it.

For this one , intent is not the decideing factor.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
scyguy:
On the malicious/attempt to avoid bit you have two separate issues, both of which require some mind reading on the umpire's part.

A runner is out is he does not attempt to avoid contact with a fielder who is in the act of making a play on the runner [8-4-2c]. Note that this is not necessarily interference.

He is ALSO out [and, oh, BTW, ejected] if he initiates malicious contact [with anyone].[8-4-2e] As you stated [but for some reason, I'm uncomfortable w/ how you wrote it- don't know why] not all intentional contact is malicious.

The mind reading comes in with:
1.)Did he attempt to avoid {& did he try hard enough}?

2.)Was the contact "malicious"?

I use and teach that "malicious" means knowing or grossly reckless conduct from which we can imply that the runner had the intent to do harm. In the absence of this intent to harm, we can have a spectacular collision, but no mailicious contact.

In most cases of major collision, and because of the "must attempt to avoid" rule, I put the burden of persuasion on the runner: unless I am convinced that there was NO WAY for the runner to avoid the collision, then in my judgment the collision happened because the runner intended to steamroll the defender [or simply didn't give a damn if he did or not], and the runner is gonna be out and ejected.

That he "attempted" [so he claims] to avoid the collision isn't good enough. He was in control of his body, his shoulder was down, he was going for the plate, no matter what was in front of him: that he deflected his trajectory slightly is merely evidence of good acting.

OTOH, in cases of minor or incidental-seeming contact, I'm applying a "presumption of innocence", at least as to maliciousness. The runner may possibly be out for failing to attempt to avoid [and certainly will be if the contact knocks the ball loose, and I don't believe he tried very hard to avoid], but I'm not ejecting him. I am also giving him some benefit of the doubt on the sincerity and sufficiency of his attempt, if the contact is not too serious.

He's going to be neither out or ejected if I am convinced that he made a reasonable good-faith effort to avoid contact, and simply was a co-victim of a "train wreck". These actually are the tough ones, since train wrecks on the diamond share with those on the tracks the element of spectacular and occasionally bloody casualties. You want to penalize someone, and you damn skippy that F2's coach wants condign punishment meted out to someone for giving his guy a concussion. The fans of both teams are gonna wonder why the catcher is getting hauled off in an abmulance, and the run is getting put up on the scoreboard. It's just that the rules of the game don't forbid hurting someone: only intending to do so.

[DG]

I have no problem distinguishing malicious contact from otherwise. Both of my sons were catchers. If there is any question if what you just saw was malicious it was probably not. I know it when I see it and my reaction will be quick.

[David B]

Originally posted by scyguy
Had a play last year in quarters of district HS tourn. I am the BU, R3 comes down line toward home, catcher zips ball to 3B and gets runner in rundown. I communicate with PU that I have 3B side, he stays with home side. R3 is advancing toward home, 3B tosses ball toward catcher. R3 dives head first toward the infield side to try and get around catcher. Contact occurs about the time the ball gets to the catcher. Right shoulder of R3 hits catcher with enough force to put catcher on his tail. Ball comes loose. Catcher hits his head on field and is down. Blood is visible on back of head.

Now, PU kills it and calls the runner out and ejects him for malicious contact. From where I was standing, I felt that the runner was trying to avoid contact and get around the catcher. He made his call, maybe he saw something that I did not see. Whatever the case, my immediate focus was keeping the 3B coach from my partner.

Now, according to what I am reading on this thread, this is a no call situation. Contact by runner was not intentional. Correct?

Maybe its just my reading, but in the rundown situation I would give the fielder the benefit of the doubt. How can I as an umpire know what the kid is thinking that hits the catcher. I have to go on my instincts.

You say he hit the catcher and put him on this tail, that's pretty blatant for someone trying to avoid the fielder.

so I'm thinking this was pretty malicious.

Also had a game the other night with F2 getting in the way of the runner with ball about 10 feet away and bouncing to F2.

Coach wants obstruction since F2 didn't have the ball. Of course I say no way he was making the play. (FED game and I'm trying to use their interpretations)

But what I wanted to say was "your stupid runner has all of this room to avoid F2 and he runs right into him??? Now that's great coaching."

Thanks
David

[cowbyfan1]

I have to agree on the latest. If you believe that the runner was trying to avoid and the contact happened then put up a safe signal and say "that's nothing".

Keep in mind. When these guys are talking about a no call then that is what they are saying is to give a safe signal and say "that's nothing" this answers the question before it is asked which is what a good ump should do. Let everyone know you have niether obstruction or interference.

[mbyron]

Had a 16U tourney game last year. Grounder to F6, throw pulls F3 toward home and he's going to tag the runner. About 4 steps from F3, BR crosses his arms in front of him like an offensive lineman (sorry: that's a football reference). F3 goes down, is in serious pain, AND the ball pops out. I call BR out and eject him for malicious contact (he was their pitcher, so that hurt).

Coach tried to tell me that BR was just protecting himself. Right.

[Sal Giaco]

mbryon,
Consider these points:

1. F6's bad throw probably caused the collision. If his throw was on target, the contact would not have occured.

2. The fact that the runner crossed his arms BEFORE the collision is not the point of focus (unless you feel he was going in for the kill). What you really want to see is what the runner did after contact was made with F3 - ie., did he extend his arms to try and jar the ball loose or knock F3 down. Intent is what you want to judge

3. Four steps is hard to gage without seeing it. The question is not how many steps but did the runner have enough time to avoid the contact?

With that said, I'm not saying you made the wrong or right call. I just wanted to illustrate the bigger picture so you know for yourself what the proper call should have been. Ofcourse, hind site is 20/20 but a play like that can be a valuable learning experience regardless of what decision you made at the time. Hope this gives you a little food for thought.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by scyguy
Had a play last year in quarters of district HS tourn. I am the BU, R3 comes down line toward home, catcher zips ball to 3B and gets runner in rundown. I communicate with PU that I have 3B side, he stays with home side. R3 is advancing toward home, 3B tosses ball toward catcher. R3 dives head first toward the infield side to try and get around catcher. Contact occurs about the time the ball gets to the catcher. Right shoulder of R3 hits catcher with enough force to put catcher on his tail. Ball comes loose. Catcher hits his head on field and is down. Blood is visible on back of head.

Now, PU kills it and calls the runner out and ejects him for malicious contact. From where I was standing, I felt that the runner was trying to avoid contact and get around the catcher. He made his call, maybe he saw something that I did not see. Whatever the case, my immediate focus was keeping the 3B coach from my partner.

Now, according to what I am reading on this thread, this is a no call situation. Contact by runner was not intentional. Correct?

*IF* it was malicious (as judged by your partner) it was, by inference, intentional. Your partner, based on his judgment, made the correct call.

*IF* it wasn't intentional (as judged by you), then your partner made the wrong call -- a "no call" would have been appropriate here.

Let me give an example from a few years ago:

Linebacker-type R2 rounds third heading for home. F2 receives the ball while R2 is about 20 feet away. R2 gets that look in his eye that he's going to take out F2, and crosses his arms and lowers his shoulder. At this point I'm thinking, "Here comes malicious contact."

About 2 steps before R2 reaches F2, the eyes soften, the arms come down, R2 straightens up. He still runs into F2 and because of the momentum and size difference, F2 goes flying backwards and drops the ball.

My call -- out for failing to make an attempt to avoid, but NOT malicious contact. R2's changed actions changed the (anticipated) call.

[mcrowder]

I tend to give a little more leeway to a RUNNER in a rundown. Why? In a rundown, after a few changes of direction (remember ... you've been there if you've played ball), the runner's sense of direction (and possibly balance) is off. Also, during a rundown, often (unless properly executed by more than 2 fielders at a relatively high level) a fielder is running backward and trying to catch at the same time - so knocking them on their kiester doesn't take much contact - especially on a catcher (any of you guys ever try to run backward, catch, and tag, while wearing catcher's gear?)

You can usually tell intent by what the runner is reaching for and whether he's bending his body to get around someone. Also by what he's looking at.

[scyguy]

8-4-2c states "immediate act of making a play". Do we have a gage on when this is? Does the ball have to be a given distance from the fielder? In my original situation B, could we call runner out and allow ball to remain alive by applying this rule? If not, then at what point is the play immediate? When the ball is five feet away?

Also, in the rundown situation, does 8-4-2c fit. Runner is out, ball is alive. What does it mean by saying "legally attempt"?

bottom line is you are going to have to interpret the situation as it happens. Malicious? Intentional? Trying to avoid? It seems, however, that there is a very fine line between trying to avoid and intentional.

[cbfoulds]

scyguy:

To use Tee's phrase: sometimes, you've just got to umpire.

Or use [former US Supreme Ct. Justice] Potter Stewart:

I may not be able to define it [obscenity, maliciousness, intent], but I know it when I see it.

Stop thrashing and start umpiring: you'll know it when you see it. Go with your instincts: if you noodle too much, you'll talk yourself out of the right call, guaranteed.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by scyguy
8-4-2c states "immediate act of making a play". Do we have a gage on when this is? Does the ball have to be a given distance from the fielder? In my original situation B, could we call runner out and allow ball to remain alive by applying this rule? If not, then at what point is the play immediate? When the ball is five feet away?

Tee (iirc) posted some good guidelines earlier in the thread.

Also, in the rundown situation, does 8-4-2c fit. Runner is out, ball is alive. What does it mean by saying "legally attempt"?

Any method that is not prohibited by rule -- IOW not hurdling, jumping, diving, ...

I teach it as "The runner must "get down, go around, or give up." -- but don't take those terms as absolutes.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[mbyron]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco
mbryon,
Consider these points:

1. F6's bad throw probably caused the collision. If his throw was on target, the contact would not have occured.

2. The fact that the runner crossed his arms BEFORE the collision is not the point of focus (unless you feel he was going in for the kill). What you really want to see is what the runner did after contact was made with F3 - ie., did he extend his arms to try and jar the ball loose or knock F3 down. Intent is what you want to judge

3. Four steps is hard to gage without seeing it. The question is not how many steps but did the runner have enough time to avoid the contact?

With that said, I'm not saying you made the wrong or right call. I just wanted to illustrate the bigger picture so you know for yourself what the proper call should have been. Ofcourse, hind site is 20/20 but a play like that can be a valuable learning experience regardless of what decision you made at the time. Hope this gives you a little food for thought.

Thank you, Sla. I agree that merely crossing the arms is not sufficient to judge intent, and I agree completely that the throw was the initial boo boo. And maybe it WAS more than 4 steps -- in my mind, the contact was clearly malicious, since BR did have time to avoid the collision. So I agree with your point 3 as well.