Batter interference, malicious contact or both?
 

Had a situation the other night would like some input. NFHS rules. Top 4, score 0-4 runners on the corners, no outs, 1-1 count right handed batter and the pitch goes past the catcher half way to the back stop. Catcher retrieves the ball as the runners are attempting to advance. Catcher looks to plate for pitcher who is not there then decides to run toward runner coming in from third. Batter looks over his left shoulder then finally steps out of the box into the catchers path and lowers a shoulder (coach claims that his 110 lb batter realized he was about to get run over and braced for contact). Catcher actually does make it through the batter and ends up actually making the tag also.

I called the batter out and ejected for malicious contact according to rule3-3-1-n. The play was dead @ the malicious contact therefore no tag on the runner from third (at least by rule). My assignor and I disagree on the next part of my call because I interpret requiring the ball to be dead before the play was made on the runner as a "movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catchers ability to make a play on a runner" (Rule 7-3-5-c). 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?

Given that you ruled MC, I think you've cited the correct rule and enforced it correctly.

But I'm having trouble seeing how a batter backing out of the box away from the play could be called for MC, especially versus a catcher, much bigger than he, who's charging right at him. IMO merely lowering one's shoulder wouldn't constitute MC -- you'd have to be moving INTO someone with a lowered shoulder.

But that's HTBT, and I wasn't there -- as I say, I'm just having trouble picturing it.

OTOH, I CAN see calling INT here, since the batter clearly hindered F2 by getting out of the box. Intent is not necessary for that call, and from what I'm picturing it would make sense.

One other general comment: every time we see a collision (with or without injury), somebody wants an out or an ejection. Baseball is a contact sport, and if the ball and players are arriving at the same point in space and time, collisions will be unavoidable. I think that these calls are difficult to make in practice, since "train wrecks" by their very nature fail to conform to the usual patterns of baseball that we're accustomed to judging. Not much to be done here other than to gain more experience.

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.

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

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).

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.

My experience has always been when a player is trying to defend himself, he will brace up for the collision. Putting the shoulder down and leaning into the collision (even though you didn't state the latter, I'm sure that's what transpired) is pretty much MC.

When the coach comes to you claiming his player was defending, my description above is how I explain the difference between "defending" & MC to the coach.

As far as the rule, if you rule interference on the batter with less than 2 out, "we don't want that batter coming back to the plate", so yes, he is out and R3 goes back to 3rd on the dead ball. The call of MC is yours and yours alone because it is a HTBT.

This is a good one to present to Mr. Hopkins who is the FED rules interpreter but IMO you cannot get 2 outs on this play.

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

OR

1. TIME
2. Interference MC
3. batter is out and EJ'd
4. R3 back to third base

IMO, I would go with number 1 since that penalizes the offense more severly meaning NO more R3.

As mentioned I do not think you can get 2 outs on this play.

Pete Booth

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

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):

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

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

Thanks
 

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, 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

I had a MC call at a JV game. Here is how it unfolded:

R2 trying to score on hit to RF. Throw to the plate, R2 slides, catcher goes down to his knees in front of the plate to block the ball on the one bounce throw from Right. Catcher bobbles the ball as he is leaning towards sliding R2. Catcher ends up laying on R2 as R2 slides and stops short of the plate. R2 is 1 foot (12") short of the plate. Ball is lying on the ground near the backstop. As R2 scrambles to get up, the catcher has already risen and is standing on the plate, and hovering over R2. As R2 gets to one knee and trys to reach the plate with the other foot, the catcher, using both arms fully extended, shoves R2 to the ground onto his back. R2 still reaches the plate before the pitcher can get the ball and tag him. I immediately give the safe sign, then point to the Catcher and give him the Heave-O.

Neither the Catcher, his teammates, nor the fans (100+) got ugly. Guess everyone knew what was going to happen. This was a big rivalry game as the 2 schools are less than 1 mile apart. The offending school is a private school; the other is a public school. Several batters were HBP from both teams. Knowing this was a rivalry, attitude would probably explode.

After Catcher was ejected, his coach came and said, "Hey Blue, in basketball the player gets a technical. In soccer it is a yellow card. Can't my catcher get a warning. He is going to miss the next 2 games if he is ejected."

I told the coach that we are playing baseball, not basketball or soccer. In baseball, MC is not a warning, it is an automatic ejection.

skinner,

What was the malicious contact?

JM

I assume it was this: "the catcher, using both arms fully extended, shoves R2 to the ground onto his back"

(I admit, it took me a couple of times through the post to find it, too.)

Exactly correct Bob Jenkins. The MC was the Catcher forcefully shoving R2 onto his back. Almost like a wrestler. After shoving him down after R2 tried to get up, Catcher just stood there as if he would do it again.

Had an earlier episode where this Catcher had been the Pitcher. He promptly hit his second batter. As I went out to give him a different ball, he smiled and said he did not hit him on purpose. As was stated above, there were about 5 players HBP.

The atmosphere was tense. The game went into an extra inning with the private school winning in the bottom of the 8th. A show of jubilation erupted as the winning run scored as he fell on the ground near the opposing team's dugout. A pile of humanity as every player piled on. Then fans started spilling onto the field towards the pile. My partner and I got the fans off the field and stood by as the 2 teams gave the end-of-game hand shake.

As we left the field area, there is only one way to go, right through the stands behind HP. Every parent, from both sides, that made a coment was very appreciative of the way we handled the situation.