Batter interference, malicious contact or both?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by klo376

In the end I ruled the batter out and ejected for malicious contact and the runner out for batter interference for a runner coming home with less than 2 outs.

Any thoughts?

I think this becomes a 10-2-3g play (not covered by rules). The rules seem to apply MC only to a runner -- and you had a batter, not a runner.

So, I agree that the batter is ejected for MC.

But, I think you can only get one out here. I'd apply the batter's interference rule, and have R3 out, other runners return, and a sub take the (now ejected) batter's place at the plate.

[FTVMartin]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think this becomes a 10-2-3g play (not covered by rules). The rules seem to apply MC only to a runner -- and you had a batter, not a runner.

2007 fed book had a change. 3-3-1 A player coach substitute or other bench personnel shall not:
n. initiate malicous contact on offense or defense

[klo376]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think this becomes a 10-2-3g play (not covered by rules). The rules seem to apply MC only to a runner -- and you had a batter, not a runner.

So, I agree that the batter is ejected for MC.

2-21-1-b specifically addresses that interference occurs when the runner initiates malicious contact so I agreee that that rule does not apply here since my issue was with the batter. But according to rule 3-3-1-n the batter should still apply here since he is on offense.

The way I read the batters actions is that he looked over his sholder, located the catcher and moved into his path (he had plenty of time to clear out of the play) to take the contact and block the catcher out of the tag play at the plate. So he moved into the catchers path to initiate the contact with a definite benefit if not called, IMO. I have that same school again tomorrow and after talking to my assignor I'm going to arrive somewhat early to explain to the coach (this was his second game date as a JV coach) and batter why I called what I called (become an eduactor to an obviously inexpierenced coach and player).

[DG]

Originally Posted by klo376

I have that same school again tomorrow and after talking to my assignor I'm going to arrive somewhat early to explain to the coach (this was his second game date as a JV coach) and batter why I called what I called (become an eduactor to an obviously inexpierenced coach and player).

I expect you would need to explain to the JV coach, immediately after the ruling, because he is likely to be on the field wanting an explanation. Your assigner did not agree with your call. If he is savvy he may change your assignment if you are going back to this same school tomorrow.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The rules seem to apply MC only to a runner -- and you had a batter, not a runner.

You can get a little closer with 5-1-1(m).

[rookieblue]

I don't see two outs here either. But I hope you'll forgive a bit of confusion on my part (as the handle implies, I'm new at this, and newer still at FED rules):

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

At this point the call is

1. TIME
2. Interference
3. Since we have less then 2 outs R3 is out
4. EJ the batter and get a new batter at the plate

Why would you eject the batter, absent malicious contact? Haven't you already penalized the interference with the out on R3?

Thanks.

Bob James

[PeteBooth]

Why would you eject the batter, absent malicious contact? Haven't you already penalized the interference with the out on R3?

Thanks.

Bob James

From the OP

Batter looks over his left shoulder then finally steps out of the box into the catchers path and lowers a shoulder

IMO, this is not a SAFETY move on the part of B1 to protect himself. He LOWERED his shoulder to "take out" F2 so his teammate could score. That's how I interpret the play.

The question is whether to call MC declare the batter out and return R3 to third base OR call Interference, R3 is out (because there were less then 2 outs) and EJ the batter for "lowering his shoulder and taking out F2)

I do not understand your question

Why would you eject the batter, absent malicious contact?

Because I wouldn't nor would most umpires. If there was no malcious act on the part of B1 then there is NO reason to Eject, however, IMO you cannot let the MC go unpunished.

This type of scenario is NOT specifically covered in FED. There are "implications" as to what to do but NOTHING concrete but the point is if "someone" committed a malcious act you cannot leave that same person in the game.

Pete Booth

[rookieblue]

Mr. Booth,

You actually did answer the question. I was laboring under the presumption that if you decided it was not MC by the batter, you would not have grounds for ejection.

But here,

This type of scenario is NOT specifically covered in FED. There are "implications" as to what to do but NOTHING concrete but the point is if "someone" committed a malcious act you cannot leave that same person in the game.

you cleared up my misunderstanding, and I agree completely. There are certainly actions that demand a forceful and immediate response (that is, ejecting the bad actor). I just misunderstood the two options you presented in your first post.

Thanks for your reply.

Bob James