ouch!!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

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

OK - now I can clear this up and I realize what I have not been saying. To this point exactly, we have to judge intent. The kid may not have intended to apply the tag in that fashion, we judged he did, we have malicious contact. Thus my "intent not needed" comments.

I apologize for not being more clear. It made perfect sense to me

[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

[cc6]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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

wwe gives new meaning to the word malice.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by cc6

wwe gives new meaning to the word malice.

Mortal enemies in WWE routinely go out drinking together after their "wrestling" matches. The is no malice in professional wrestling. They are all good friends just like a traveling carnival. Sorry if that ruins it for you.