The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 26, 2009, 09:20pm
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
If I saw this in an NCAA game, I'd have malicious contact, an out, and an ejection. No thought of obstruction.

JJ
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 26, 2009, 09:45pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpumpire View Post
I think an argument could be made for an obstruction call against the pitcher. Without possession of the ball, he caused the runner to alter his stride before reaching the plate.
It would be a very weak argument of obstruction on F1.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 27, 2009, 09:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 685
JJ,

When I first saw the video that is what I would have called as well. Just to pick your brain fior a moment, what is it that convinces you of the MC call?
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2009, 03:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wa.
Posts: 198
I also have MC.

I see no attempt to "avoid contact" by the runner.
Looked like a bowl over attempt, though the runner looks undecided, looks like he thought slide, then changed his mind.

Would be interesting to see the rational of overturning this?

Looked like blue was right on top of it, made the out call, then right away the ejection, looked perfect to me...
__________________
SLAS
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2009, 05:47pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike View Post
I also have MC.

I see no attempt to "avoid contact" by the runner.
Looked like a bowl over attempt, though the runner looks undecided, looks like he thought slide, then changed his mind.
He does not have to avoid contact. He just needs to be making an attemp to to reach the base.

A.R. 1—If the fielder blocks the path of the base runner to the base (plate), the runner may make contact, slide into, or collide with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base or plate.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 28, 2009, 08:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 224
I agree with SLS that it looked like he started to slide right at the top of the cutout right after the the pitchers foot is dragged out of the way but then it also would have been a Charlie Brown slide as you look at the first baseman who is right where the 3rd baseline connects with the batters box about "3 feet" in front of the plate. The runner had no chance at a completely blocked off plate, plus the first baseman lowered his left shoulder into the runner to brace for the contact just like a catcher is taught to.

This makes DG's comment and A.R. 1 look like what is happening. When did the runner cross over into A.R. 2 territory when A.R. 1 says runner may make contact or collide. Would a diving collision like Pete Rose's into Ray Fosse be considered as making legitimate collision attempt to reach the base or plate since Pete was diving?

What types of collision plays would be considered legitimate on a plate that is completely blocked off 3 feet up the third baseline. The first baseman did not even give the runner the back half of the plate to try for. So, once again lets have some examples of legal contact "collision" plays that are "not slide into" plays, and that would not be considered malicious.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2009, 11:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,226
I have MC here - the catcher got trucked. You can't "go for the plate" THROUGH the catcher, as the runner did (actually, it was F3 covering).

Aside from the contact, we're forgetting the bullet point #1 - "Was the contact avoidable?" The contact here was definitely avoidable and running over F3 was totally unnecessary.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2009, 11:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 469
That looks like MC to me. The you tube slow mo video shows him "reset" his feet and lower his shoulders (which is kind of what I saw in real time).

The rules state "if in the umpire's judgement..." So the rules of conduct are there, it's our judgment whether or not they are violated. The PU made that judgement and called MC apparently (although the video says it was for not sliding - we all know better). How can they use video to overturn a judgment call? Are they going to review every balk and every banger at first?

I agree with MC. I disagree with overturning it.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2009, 11:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthGARef View Post
...and told him the conference had overturned the suspension.
Why did this type of ejection carry a suspension? It shouldn't have, by rule.

Did the conference apologize for the ejection because they didn't think it was malicious contact? Or did they just rescind a wrongful suspension of this player?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 29, 2009, 11:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossman72 View Post
Why did this type of ejection carry a suspension? It shouldn't have, by rule.

Did the conference apologize for the ejection because they didn't think it was malicious contact? Or did they just rescind a wrongful suspension of this player?
OP says the suspension is a Southern Confernce mandate. If that's the case, they had to over-rule the ejection.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malicious Contact harmbu Baseball 23 Fri May 02, 2008 11:16pm
Malicious contact SC Ump Softball 15 Tue Mar 15, 2005 03:53pm
Malicious Contact Gre144 Baseball 1 Wed Jul 04, 2001 11:42am
Malicious Contact (FED) Gre144 Baseball 1 Tue Jun 26, 2001 09:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1