ouch!!
 

YouTube - Be The Umpire!

I know that baseball is a contact sport, but......

Appears to be malicious contact on the defense.

interesting that the umps are still there to watch them shake hands...game's over...outta here!

Normal at our place.

They don't even shake hands around here anymore. Too many brawls over the years. We definitely don't stick around to observe it. The teams are free to kick the crap out of each other, the umpires leave when the game is over. Toss the baseballs toward the home dugout and walk.

Interesting...is there a reason? Or is it something you've always done?

In Massachusetts, it's now mandatory for umpires to remain on the field to observe the handshakes.

If there's a good reason not to remain for the handshakes (contentious calls, etc.) the umpires have to fill out a form and send it to the state board.

A good reason would be "the game is over".

We've always done it - not as observers - they congratulate the kids too. The coaches thank them for umpiring.

The umpires are part of the league, not a foreign legion. They know many of the kids. For most of them, it's a way to stay involved after their own kids graduate.

Those who think their objective is to umpire and hightail it wouldn't like it here.

And it's a good lesson for all - the game is over - get on with it.

We think we're doing it the right way.

Disclaimer: this man is referring to Little League Baseball, where it's for the kids and all that. Shaving age players tend to get rowdy when they lose and are not in the mood to shake hands, and would just as soon kill the umpires as shake their hands.

Let's also remind the good people out there that MA also does not use FED rules for HS games, either!

I love that MA uses OBR-based rules.

I'm ambivalent on the handshake. They don't require us to be within a "step and a reach" of the handshake line, just on-the-field.

I'm with Steve. Shaving age and up, I roll out ASAP. Don't want to see or hear anything, especially comments toward my crew and myself.
However, I did a 12U travel game last Sat. First time I did that young in years. I had the plate. After the last out, I tossed the balls and walked to the gate to wait for my partner. He began shaking hands with the kids. Then he began walking over to the gate and the kids nearly chased me down to shake my hand.
It was a nice gesture, I just wasn't used to that.:)

No malice meant about not using FED rules, we just don't want the newbies to go running to the FED rulebook on this.

What does MA want you guys on the field for, anyway? Are you supposed to break up a confrontation or take names? (maybe we should start a new thread)

No intent to injure, just a bit of carelessness on the part of the pitcher. Looked like he tagged him hard to make sure he got the out. Pitcher went away right after the tag, a sign of no aggression.

What are you guys seeing that I'm not. I see the BR running outside the foul line, and seeing that he is a dead duck, crossing to fair territory to crash the fielder. The fielder saw it coming and protected the tag and himself. If anything, it was offensive malicious contact in FED. Would not you think if he was facing a tag the BR would avoid to the foulside or maybe backpedal (no they are not that smart enough). I won't be signing up on utube to voice my opinion however.

I hate the fact that FED baseball has gone somewhat overboard with the wussy protection rules, but for Chrissakes, a two-arm pop in the chops is malicious contact. I had an identical tag play last week, and the pitcher tagged the runner a little roughly in the pit of the stomach and the kid went down in a heap, which we later learned was due to a previous rib injury. But I had nothing other than an out call, even though the runner "looked" injured. The guy had a right to make a quick, sure tag. But not in the face!

More like a move hoping he didn't get caught.

A sign of no aggression. Wow. I missed that.

Forearm in the face has always seemed aggressive to me. Maybe I don't watch enough pro wrestling to know what that kind of playful aggression is and how to distinguish it from real aggression.

I watched the video once, and my first thought was this play was totally unnecessary and I immediately thought I would eject the pitcher.

I really expected the next part of the video to show the pitcher getting hit in the ribs when he batted the next time.

It was a glove to the helmet. A hard tag yes, but probably done due to not thinking that he didn't need to tag the guy so hard. If the player had meant it in an aggressive way, he would have stayed there. Not many players are going to do something aggressive, then run away to not get caught.

So you conceed that some players, like the one in the video, would try to move away, as he did in the video, to avoid being caught?

I don't care what the players intentions were, my preventative officiating is ejecting the kid for malicious contact.

I think if anyone gets tossed, it is both players. The runner clearly puts his arms up to his chest to protect himself just like the pitcher. So, both are at fault for contact. The pitcher won.

The runner could have easily just stopped or stayed in foul territory to avoid the pitcher. It looked to me like he went toward the pitcher with the hope of putting up his arms up and knocking the ball loose. He initiated all of the contact.

It was a hard tag but watch the pitcher. He turns to look at the other runner(s) immediately. There was no stare down or any other looks. All the looks came from the beaten runner.

I say no ejection and no reference to the play except get the runner off the field. If he goes after the pitcher, eject him.

Oh, you mean no further sign of aggression.:confused:

Far more players are going to attempt to avoid getting caught than those will stand there in an agressive stance in front of the umpire and others.`

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

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.

However, I agree that the BR's post-actions are questionable. He shouldn't have walked toward the pitcher AT ALL.

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

I disagree. I know plenty of kids that would take an opportunity for a cheap shot and walk away in "victory." The intent was to get one good shot in, not to start a street fight - they got it, they were satisfied. It doesn't make the action any more or any less malilciaous just becasue they now walked away.

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.

For all we know that runner was dating the pitcher's sister and he broke up with her just before prom. Big brother wanted some payback for that.:D

Not sure what utopian society you live in, but if I jab someone, I'm not sticking around to get caught.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Gee thanks for always adding an insult.

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'.

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.

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.

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

Agreed, unnecessary hard tag to the face.

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.

Talk about being extreme and missing a point.



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

wwe gives new meaning to the word malice.

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 :confused:

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.

:eek:

OMG! It's not fake!! No way!!!!

The refs are terrible, by the way. How can they miss so much of the dirty stuff that goes on every night? :p

On the OP...
 

I have nothing. Looked like they both expected a collision. The pitcher MIGHT have got a "watch the high tag"!