Malicious contact?
 

http://www.bullochheadlinenews.com/i...esaw%20St..wmv

Runner was immediately ejected. The Southern Conference mandates that any player ejected must sit out next game, but after reviewing the tape determined that this was not malicious contact and reinstated the player without penalty.

Thoughts?

Was the contact at the 1 minute mark? If this is FED, maybe not malicious, but some type of illegal slide maybe? These guys look a bit older than FED level though maybe NCAA or OBR game? Either way, I think you can get away w/ a MC call here so I'm not saying that PU is wrong by any means.

Weird looking play. I had to replay it a few times. Paused it at the point of contact and it looked like he tried to use his left elbow to go through him. Looked like the right was trying to touch the plate. Not sure what I would have called in a game situation.

In a sarcastic note, glad that they were able to back the offical up.:mad:

Probably the play at the 0:51 mark. I don't know NCAA rules but it sure looks like MC to me.

Didn't look malicious to me.

(It says Georgia Southern University on the scoreboard.)

I knew somebody would let me know. A crazy sitch indeed. On the final play on the video, BU is covering home and he signals something at the end.

I can see a MC call here. If NCAA wants it called, they should support his ruling on this play...when in doubt it's MC...player safety is the issue.

Is there proof that the MC call was overruled. Not saying the OP is lying...just wondering where he got his info so we can discuss this.

By the way, thanks for posting this video clip. These are great for discussing!

The Athletic Director for Georgia Southern called to thank the camera man for providing the video, and told him the conference had overturned the suspension.

I know this because I'm a Georgia Southern grad and fan. Wasn't at the game -- didn't see the play.

not a master at NCAA rules, but isn't it in the rules where they can only use video to determine who was or was not involved in a brawl? or does the conference get to do as they please? i just find it frustrating from an umpiring standpoint where a play like this gets overturned. Defensive coach comes unglued if you don't call MC here.

Frustrating indeed. I hope the Southern Conference doesn't want any MC calls the rest of the year. I bet they don't get any, no matter the extent of the contact.

When I slowed the video down, it looked like the runner tried to get both shoulders around the player with the ball to get to the plate. So if the conference saw that, I could understand why they lifted the suspension. But had I been the umpire on the field it would be MC. That was my first impression from seeing it in real time, not in slow or stop action. Any other comments?

Definitely MC in a FED game. In NCAA, which this appears to be, the umpire must judge if the runner is trying to score or just create MC. In this case I would say no MC per NCAA rules.

Here is the NCAA rule on Collision...

Collision Rule
SECTION 7. The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and
violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all
bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive
players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.
a. When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is
in possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge:
(1) Whether the collision by the runner was avoidable (could the runner
have reached the base without colliding) or unavoidable (the runner’s
path to the base was blocked);
(2) Whether the runner actually was attempting to reach the base (plate)
or attempting to dislodge the ball from the fielder; or
(3) Whether the runner was using flagrant contact to maliciously
dislodge the ball.
PENALTY—If the runner attempted to dislodge the ball, the runner shall
be declared out even if the fielder loses possession of the
ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return
to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
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.
A.R. 2—If the flagrant or malicious contact by the runner was before the runner’s
touching the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The
ball shall be declared dead immediately. All other base runners shall return to the bases
they occupied at the time of the pitch.
A.R. 3—If the contact was after a preceding runner had touched home plate, the
preceding runner will be ruled safe, the ball becomes dead immediately and all other base
runners will return to the base they had last touched before the contact.
A.R. 4—If the runner is safe and the collision is malicious, the runner shall be ruled safe
and ejected from the game. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team
may replace the runner.
b. If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line clearly
without possession of the ball, obstruction shall be called. The umpire
shall point and call, “That’s obstruction.” The umpire shall let the play
continue until all play has ceased, call time and award any bases that are
RULE 8 / BASE RUNING 103
justified in Rule 2. The obstructed runner is awarded at least one base
beyond the base last touched legally before the obstruction.
A.R.—If the base runner collides flagrantly, the runner shall be declared safe on the
obstruction, but will be ejected from the contest. The ball is dead

my .02
 

video feed ID showed the game as GSU vs Kennesaw State....no mention of any incident on the OWL website...

I captured the play in question from the longer video and added slow motion. The new video is posted here:

YouTube - Play at the plate

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.

Also, I don't see this as malicious contact with the catcher.

If I saw this in an NCAA game, I'd have malicious contact, an out, and an ejection. No thought of obstruction.

JJ

It would be a very weak argument of obstruction on F1.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.