ouch!!

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by cc6

No the opposite. If a player does something aggressive he is going to stay there and hold his ground.

Why does that even matter? Why would you even care about the reaction? If you make an aggressive action, a non-aggressive reaction does not cancel it out.

By what you are posting, if he was to punch the kid directly in the eye (obviously aggressive) and then walk away, it seems that you think that makes it not an aggressive move. Sure, you'll say that's not what you mean because it probably isn't, but you have posted that same view several times, and it is not something you can be consistent with.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Now, in this play, F1 may not have intentionally tagged the runner in the face, but he did. That, combined with the force used to make the tag, makes it malicious.

This logic is incorrect. Intent is a requirement of malice.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Matt

This logic is incorrect. Intent is a requirement of malice.

Not when you take into account all the safety rules written in FED. Webster's may define it with intent, but they didn't write the FED rule book.

With the new defensive malicious contact written into the rules, a hard tag could be considered malicious.

This tag was in the face, it didn't have to be, it COULD be malicious even without intent.

[cc6]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Runner crashes into and takes out the catcher with a forearm. He gets up and goes to his dugout.

So, this is not an aggressive act because he doesn't hang out to admire his work?

BullSh!t.

Easy there big guy. How many pitchers say "sorry" after intentionally hitting a batter to avoid getting ejected? Not many. Most players are going to stand by what they do. I think if that player had meant to hit the runner, he would have jogged backwards expecting retaliation on the part of the player. I only watched the clip once, but from what I remember he turned around, thus leaving himself open to attack. He wouldn't have turned his back if he thought there would be any sort of any attack back at him.

[cc6]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

Why does that even matter? Why would you even care about the reaction? If you make an aggressive action, a non-aggressive reaction does not cancel it out.

By what you are posting, if he was to punch the kid directly in the eye (obviously aggressive) and then walk away, it seems that you think that makes it not an aggressive move. Sure, you'll say that's not what you mean because it probably isn't, but you have posted that same view several times, and it is not something you can be consistent with.

I wouldn't decide whether or not to eject the fielder after waiting for him to walk away. The act of walking away is evidence that he didn't push the guy with malicious intent. It was clumsiness, and probably inexperience on tag plays. Another factor I remember is that he didn't look at the guy when he tagged him. All around not malicious, and I'm not ejecting for it.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

I wouldn't decide whether or not to eject the fielder after waiting for him to walk away. The act of walking away is evidence that he didn't push the guy with malicious intent. It was clumsiness, and probably inexperience on tag plays. Another factor I remember is that he didn't look at the guy when he tagged him. All around not malicious, and I'm not ejecting for it.

Rubbish. You are basing your entire argument on a fallacy. People committing aggressive acts do not always hang around to admire their work. Many people who act aggressively are, in fact, cowards and move away quickly.

Indeed, most of those who stay after an agressive act are those who acted accidentally or clusmsily. These people tend to stay to indicate their lack of intent or remorse, or both.

Back to the classroom.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

With the new defensive malicious contact written into the rules, a hard tag could be considered malicious.
This tag was in the face, it didn't have to be, it COULD be malicious even without intent.

Mind citing the rule which justifies the notion that malicious contact doesn't require intent?

[cc6]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Rubbish. You are basing your entire argument on a fallacy. People committing aggressive acts do not always hang around to admire their work. Many people who act aggressively are, in fact, cowards and move away quickly.

Indeed, most of those who stay after an agressive act are those who acted accidentally or clusmsily. These people tend to stay to indicate their lack of intent or remorse, or both.

Back to the classroom.

Gee thanks for always adding an insult.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by cc6

Can you and Garth ever make a post without insulting someone?

Well, he's right...you keep arguing the losing side of the argument, after being told you're wrong by numerous posters. I'd have to agree that you need a bit more learnin'.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

Gee thanks for always adding an insult.

In the past you have claimed to be a college student majoring in pyschology. I assume that to be the truth. I did not make an insult. I issued an admonishment. Your post does not indcate that you are thinking like a psychologist yet.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Mind citing the rule which justifies the notion that malicious contact doesn't require intent?

Mind citing the rule which justifies the notion that malicious contact does require intent?

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Mind citing the rule which justifies the notion that malicious contact does require intent?

All right. First there is the necessity that the words and phrases of the rules (any rules, or the posts in this forum) have meaning, and that the meaning is available through either common usage, or by separate definition if some non-common meaning is intended. For example, "balk" has a common meaning, but in baseball rules it has a more specific, technical meaning, and the rules provide a definition.

"Malicious" has a common meaning, and no separately defined meaning, so, yes, intent is required.

Consider also Caseplay 8.3.3O, which seems to address directly the spurious notion that a hard tag to the face could be malicious without intent.

"8.3.3 SITUATION O: With R1 at third and R2 at first with one out, B3 hits a ground ball to F4. While attempting to tag R2 advancing to second, F4 applies intentional excessive force to R2’s head. On the play R1 is (a) advancing to the plate, or (b) R1 holds at third. RULING: In both (a) and (b), F4 is guilty of malicious contact......."

[my emphasis.]

Of course, the umpire is the judge of intent, so you can call this play any way you want.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Mind citing the rule which justifies the notion that malicious contact does require intent?

Why don't wwe consider the meaing of the word "malicious"?

Malicious comes from "malice":

1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

[DG]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

Appears to be malicious contact on the defense.

Agreed, unnecessary hard tag to the face.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Your position is that the BR is equally at fault for trying to protect himself?

Yes, he is equally at fault for the contact. He and the pitcher both put up their arms just before contact. You can see the runner's arms come out as well but the pitcher got the better of it.

Originally Posted by yawetag

What's next? You keep a batter at the plate when he turns to protect his face from an inside pitch that hits him in the back?

Talk about being extreme and missing a point.

Originally Posted by yawetag

To me, the batter was protecting himself. Before the tag, the batter does slow down in what looks like an effort to stop and give himself up to the tag.

So was the pitcher. They both were protecting themselves before contact.