When to call Time on an injury (FED)

[CajunNewBlue]

Sorry to disagree with the OP's umpire... but this is MC and is referenced in the casebook almost verbatim. if this was a high school level game (i know some younger groups play by FED also) but, if it was high school... they darn well know better what part of the base to step on. If the runner wasn't bumped into F3 or stumbled, then ran over his foot... I'm calling MC.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

Sorry to disagree with the OP's umpire... but this is MC and is referenced in the casebook almost verbatim. if this was a high school level game (i know some younger groups play by FED also) but, if it was high school... they darn well know better what part of the base to step on. If the runner wasn't bumped into F3 or stumbled, then ran over his foot... I'm calling MC.

Me too. That play is as chickens--t as it gets.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

Sorry to disagree with the OP's umpire... but this is MC and is referenced in the casebook almost verbatim. if this was a high school level game (i know some younger groups play by FED also) but, if it was high school... they darn well know better what part of the base to step on. If the runner wasn't bumped into F3 or stumbled, then ran over his foot... I'm calling MC.

I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion but where in the casebook does it cite that unintentionally stepping on the foot/ankle of the fielder is MC?

-Josh

[Kevin Finnerty]

He's saying that it is almost always intentional and probably in this instance as well, and that he, like many of us, take a dim view of that particular stunt because it's cowardly and bush--especially if the first baseman is giving you a clear shot at the bag. If it's your judgment that it was unintentional, then fine; but if it's done, I am virtually always going to discern intent.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion but where in the casebook does it cite that unintentionally stepping on the foot/ankle of the fielder is MC?

-Josh

I am currently looking for it in the current one.... I know ive read it in one of the following... 2009 baseball rules or caseplays... 2008 baseball rules or caseplays or rules by topic. but perhaps i pulled this one out of my butt from the FED or NCAA softball rules (i know its baseball, but dang, if its MC for the girls im calling it for the boys). its in one of them.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

I am currently looking for it in the current one.... I know ive read it in one of the following... 2009 baseball rules or caseplays... 2008 baseball rules or caseplays or rules by topic. but perhaps i pulled this one out of my butt from the FED or NCAA softball rules (i know its baseball, but dang, if its MC for the girls im calling it for the boys). its in one of them.

Malicious contact requires excessive force and/or intent to injure - any maybe avoidable contact. Too many people are judging any contact as malicious.

[CajunNewBlue]

hrmmm.... hard to not say "intentional" when practice after practice they are taught/instructed to run and touch the bag.... then they don't put into play what they practice... i judge that as intentional. ie: they know to run and touch the bag and chose NOT to do that....if he had stumbled, or had been bumped or had pressure from a foul side throw.. maybe not intentional..... but, that's just me.

[johnnyg08]

I saw it one time two years ago and one time last year. I have gotten to the point where I am considering ejecting the next player at the high school varsity level and above because the more I think about it, I was pretty fast back in the day and attempted bunt singles many, many times and not one time did I ever come near F3's foot. I guess I'm having a hard time seeing it as accidental upon further review.

[johnnyg08]

I skimmed through the case book and the 2009 Rules by Topic and didn't see this rule...but I did skim through the books...

[SAump]

Some teams think the bag is in the base path and the runner is entitled to run through the bag. I saw the same batter run into F3 on two seperate occasions. The first time, he successfully manages to seperate F3 from the ball. The second time, he was out. I couldn't read intent, but I warned him to avoid contact with the fielder. His coach thought I shouldn't have said anything about it.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by SAump

Some teams think the bag is in the base path and the runner is entitled to run through the bag. I saw the same batter run into F3 on two seperate occasions. The first time, he successfully manages to seperate F3 from the ball. The second time, he was out. I couldn't read intent, but I warned him to avoid contact with the fielder. His coach thought I shouldn't have said anything about it.

Why wouldn't they be allowed/entitled to run thru the bag? if F3 blocks the bag and only gives them the very outside/foul side of first i might be inclined to call OBS (if the runner changes direction or is impeded)..ohh wait this is baseball...never mind

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Some teams think the bag is in the base path and the runner is entitled to run through the bag.

I agree with "some teams." I have no idea what transpired in your plays, or what this has to do with the OP.

[SAump]

I then called Time and told runners to return to 2B & 3B and allowed the HC to attend to F3. Prior to returning to game play the Offensive HC wanted an explanation of why I called Time and did not let runs score (he was ‘loosing’ by a lot of runs).

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Malicious contact requires excessive force and/or intent to injure - any maybe avoidable contact. Too many people are judging any contact as malicious.

Can or should this contact between F3 and B/R be considered interference, if not malicious contact? No runs would have scored in a 2 out situation as a result of the 3rd out made at 1B. The judgment made to determine interference is based on whether or not other baserunners would have chosen to advance had F3 not fallen to the ground, and for no other cause. Interference in this situation would also immediately kill the play and not require an "injury" time out. The closest rules I could find relate to 5.1.1.e {et al.}.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Malicious contact requires excessive force and/or intent to injure - any maybe avoidable contact. Too many people are judging any contact as malicious.

Going on the fair side of the bag for no apparent reason is a malicious act. And I like to let guys play the game. But that's the kind of chickens--t bush move that must result in an ejection for more than one key reason, including preventing a retaliatory act.

I am not looking for ejections, but that would be one of them.