Erstad - Estrada Collision at the plate

[Rich]

Originally posted by dvellison
How can the definition of a word be irrelevant?

It's very simple and NO it would not be an ejection. No player should be ejected for doing his job. You cannot compare this play to a pitcher who "INTENTIONALLY" throws at a batters head. Your comment about pitchers throwing at batters is exactly the definition of malice, with intent to cause harm. That is exactly what malice should be.

Let me be perfectly clear, if the catcher does not want to receive contact, he should not place himself anywhere with the "LEGAL" basepath. He did so by his choice.

You can't change the rules because some people want to complain constantly about anything and everything that they think is wrong. That's why we have a rulebook. The last thing baseball needs is another rule that gives umpires the opportunity to screw up another judgement calls.

You guys go at it, I'm done. Thanks.

(1) You clearly aren't an official, (2) You don't have a clue.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by CoachJM
JRut,

I certainly had no intention of offending you with my comments above, so I hope it didn't come across that way.

How did you offend me?

I gave an opinion and that is all there is to it. If you feel baseball is the same as hockey that is your opinion. I just disagree with that point of view. It takes a lot more than a silly discussion (which ultimately this is) for me or to worry about it.

Peace

[dvellison]

Actually, I am. I have coached baseball for about 25 years and have been an umpire for 17 years. Experienced, certified and trained. I don't comment based on personal likes and dislike. I'm talking about the rules and the honest interpretation of judgement calls based on facts, without regard to personal preference of teams or players.

As an umpire, we get most of the calls right. This does not include balls and strikes since that area has become completely judgemental with disredard for the rules. Our job is to make the call based our judgement of the facts and interpretation of the rule without personal regard to the parties involved. In other words, it's player A and player B, not Erstad againt my team's catcher.
There is no point to discussing this play in a forum and debating a judgement call if you do not have the ability to look at the situation without bias.

It's clear that this discussion is becoming more about what happened to my team's catcher when it should be about the rules.

No honest, impartial umpire would make a judgement of that play and say that Erstad's only intent was to injure another player. In this play there are only two possibilities when making the judgement call to determine malicious contact.

1) Did the baserunner legally make contact with the catcher with the sole intent of injuring the catcher without regard to scoring the run?
OR

2) Did the baserunner make contact with the catcher to dislodge the ball to avoid being tagged out and thus scoring a run?

It's that simple. You decide which one honestly fits this situation.

[Matthew F]

As stated early, this play is legal in OBR.

However, at lower levels where a goal is to protect the players from injury, this play would have constituted malicious contact.

While recognizing your years as coaching and umpiring, I'll choose to side with a known authority on the rules and their interpretation... Jaska/Roder, whom write:

(NFHS 3-3-1n) A runner who maliciously crashes into any fielder when the contact was avoidable (or when contact was unavoidable, but the runnerÂ’s intent was to harm) is out and ejected, the ball is dead, and other runners must return to their last bases touched or passed at the time of the malicious crash. A runner who has scored and then crashes into a fielder is allowed his run unless he advanced as a result of being forced from third to home (such runner is still ejected).


[Edited by Matthew F on Jun 16th, 2005 at 12:40 PM]

[dvellison]

I agree at other levels. But we are not talking about amateur sports. I thought we were talking about one play and Major League baseball.

If we follow that particular interpretation, then every runner who slides into 2nd base to break up a double play would have to be dealt with the same way. That's not the way professional baseball was intended to be played.

There is a reason why MLB does not have a "malicious contact" rule. It's not a game for children where we protect the welfare of those who cannot or do not have the ability to protect themselves. You can't have a "malicious contact" rule and then broaden it to cover every possible situation that might come close. Malicious contact cannot be interpreted in MLB the same as it is in little league.

[Mike Ricketts]

Originally posted by dvellison
No honest, impartial umpire would make a judgement of that play and say that Erstad's only intent was to injure another player. In this play there are only two possibilities when making the judgement call to determine malicious contact.

1) Did the baserunner legally make contact with the catcher with the sole intent of injuring the catcher without regard to scoring the run?
OR

2) Did the baserunner make contact with the catcher to dislodge the ball to avoid being tagged out and thus scoring a run?

It's that simple. You decide which one honestly fits this situation.

You are confusing intent and purpose. If I smash a window only because I wanted to rob the store, did I still not intend to smash the window?

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by dvellison


If we follow that particular interpretation, then every runner who slides into 2nd base to break up a double play would have to be dealt with the same way. That's not the way professional baseball was intended to be played.

In the aforementioned you are incorrect. I am a Mets Fan and since we are also talking about the Braves, a play happend the last time the Mets played in Atlanta.

If memory serves the Mets were trailing by 2 runs and had the bases loaded and one out. David Right was on first base. There was a ground ball to F4 who threw to F6 for a 4-6-3 DP. David Right went "right at" F6 causing a wild throw to first base. R2 and R3 scored but WAIT

Second Base Umpire can't remember his name ruled David Right for intentional interference and rung up 2. I am a Met Fan but that was an excellant call as David Right could not reach second base if there were 2 of him.

Major League Baseball views the play at the plate differently in line with how tradition has ruled.

As far as your accusation that Erstad was doing his job again IMO is incorrect. His job is to score a run for his team. The base was not completely blocked. He went out of his way to crash into Estrada. It was evident that he wanted to do more than simply score a run for his team. A classic "malicious Act"

With the exception of MLB, the play we saw is an OUT, an ejection and at the very minimum a one game suspension.


Pete Booth

[Rich]

Originally posted by dvellison
Actually, I am. I have coached baseball for about 25 years and have been an umpire for 17 years. Experienced, certified and trained. I don't comment based on personal likes and dislike. I'm talking about the rules and the honest interpretation of judgement calls based on facts, without regard to personal preference of teams or players.

As an umpire, we get most of the calls right. This does not include balls and strikes since that area has become completely judgemental with disredard for the rules. Our job is to make the call based our judgement of the facts and interpretation of the rule without personal regard to the parties involved. In other words, it's player A and player B, not Erstad againt my team's catcher.
There is no point to discussing this play in a forum and debating a judgement call if you do not have the ability to look at the situation without bias.

It's clear that this discussion is becoming more about what happened to my team's catcher when it should be about the rules.

No honest, impartial umpire would make a judgement of that play and say that Erstad's only intent was to injure another player. In this play there are only two possibilities when making the judgement call to determine malicious contact.

1) Did the baserunner legally make contact with the catcher with the sole intent of injuring the catcher without regard to scoring the run?
OR

2) Did the baserunner make contact with the catcher to dislodge the ball to avoid being tagged out and thus scoring a run?

It's that simple. You decide which one honestly fits this situation.

Nobody even suggested that this is malicious contact in MLB. It is in any level that has a malicious contact rule. MLB has no such rule. Where's the disagreement?

[JugglingReferee]

Finally saw the play in question. I'm not an ump, but I do officiate.

My comment is not to debate philosophies of different rulesets or levels of play, but if that was legal, I surely would like to see what it is that becomes illegal.

Stuff like that turns me away from the sport.

[DG]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Finally saw the play in question. I'm not an ump, but I do officiate.

My comment is not to debate philosophies of different rulesets or levels of play, but if that was legal, I surely would like to see what it is that becomes illegal.

Stuff like that turns me away from the sport.

In MLB there is no collision between runner and catcher that is illegal. In all other games with a malicious contact rule this is an out and ejection.

[David B]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Finally saw the play in question. I'm not an ump, but I do officiate.

My comment is not to debate philosophies of different rulesets or levels of play, but if that was legal, I surely would like to see what it is that becomes illegal.

Stuff like that turns me away from the sport.

You are exactly correct, that is not the way game is supposed to be played, anymore.

And MLB has a way of dealing with players who "go over the line" of what is accepted.

You can count on it happening sometime in the future. Might be a bean ball, might be a spike, but payback always comes in MLB.

So while by rule they allow practically anything, in reality that is why we have so many fights and bean balls etc., because often the line is crossed.

Especially now that the players make $$$$$$$$$$$ and they don't want to miss a game and hurt their stats if they can help it.

When I was growing up and wathcing baseball as a kid, stuff like this was simply ignored, just a good play and everyone on both teams would go "wow".

Baseball was a lot more fun to watch in those days.

thanks
David

[jxt127]

After working in the batting cage last night we stopped towatch some of a 16-17 game.

A 1-1 game in the 4th when the visitors R3 decided to run over F2 while scoring without a throw. F2 was standing on the plate for some reason known only to him and god. At that level of ball he should certainly know a lot better than that.

Anyway R3 just plows into him. No need to do it. When the dust settles R3 is ejected. his coach throws his hat and he's gone too. The blues confer and R3 is called out and the run removed. Pretty costly just to run F2 over.

Ahh well.