Media Idiots

[SanDiegoSteve]

Perhaps (just speculating) the point is that the runner was actually ejected for Malicious Contact, as there was no interference, and Duck is just pointing out how writers usually are ignorant of the rules. Also naming the umpire implying that it was a bad call may have something to do with it, too.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Perhaps (just speculating) the point is that the runner was actually ejected for Malicious Contact, as there was no interference,

MC is interference.

Otherwise, I agree.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

MC is interference.

Not always. What if there were no play on the runner, like the ball was cut off and relayed to 2nd base, and the runner crashed the catcher? How would that be interference?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Not always. What if there were no play on the runner, like the ball was cut off and relayed to 2nd base, and the runner crashed the catcher? How would that be interference?

Malicious contact is a type of interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Malicious contact is a type of interference.

Oh, another FEDspeak thing. I get it.

[umpduck11]

I wasn't very clear in my OP, as the runner did give the catcher a forearm shiver. There was no "true" interference, as no play was being made on runner by the catcher, and he didn't have possession of the ball.
To be honest, I never considered MC as interference, just as a safety/sportsmanship issue.

[tribefan1952]

Malicious contact is malicious contact. Interference is interference. Sometimes they happen simultaneously, but not always. This sounds like malicious contact to me, but i wasn't there.