Malicious Contact?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Brett

Looks a runner bracing for contact with a player that has no right to be in front of him and an arm flying up as a result of the contact for which he was bracing.

Well, we agree on the arm and the catcher. Most people don't brace by leaning forward, though--they attempt to absorb it by leaning backward.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by Matt

Well, we agree on the arm and the catcher. Most people don't brace by leaning forward, though--they attempt to absorb it by leaning backward.

Some people run more shoulders over toes than others. He seemed to be still be running hard not quite knowing where the ball was. JMO.

[bossman72]

I think by virtue of the phrase itself, you need contact for there to be "malicious contact".

I know what it looks like he tried to do, but he didn't do it. I got nothing.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bossman72

I think by virtue of the phrase itself, you need contact for there to be "malicious contact".

I know what it looks like he tried to do, but he didn't do it. I got nothing.

You're saying you didn't see contact? The catcher staggered backwards as a result of it--the legs, at a minimum, definitely made contact at about the knees.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Brett

Some people run more shoulders over toes than others. He seemed to be still be running hard not quite knowing where the ball was. JMO.

I'd agree with you, but he was running fairly straight up until he saw the catcher. As he neared the catcher, that's when the lean occurred.

[zm1283]

Did the runner touch home plate? Sure didn't look like it.

I've got nothing as far as the contact goes. If the ball had beaten him there, the catcher would have had it in time to tag him, which didn't happen.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Did the runner touch home plate? Sure didn't look like it.

I've got nothing as far as the contact goes. If the ball had beaten him there, the catcher would have had it in time to tag him, which didn't happen.

So, you don't have MC, but why don't you have obstruction?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Matt

So, you don't have MC, but why don't you have obstruction?

I didn't say that I didn't have obstruction. I forgot to add that I would possibly have obstruction if I'm on the field making that call. I was just addressing the part about MC. It's definitely not MC.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I didn't say that I didn't have obstruction. I forgot to add that I would possibly have obstruction if I'm on the field making that call. I was just addressing the part about MC. It's definitely not MC.

Okay...when you said "I've got nothing as far as the contact" I thought you meant both MC and OBS.

[Ump Rube]

From what I see, there was minimal contact. It looks like the runner is setting up to plow the catcher over, but he backs up due to the throw and the runner misses both laying out the catcher and the plate as it looks to me.

Do we know what the call on the field was?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Ump Rube

From what I see, there was minimal contact. It looks like the runner is setting up to plow the catcher over, but he backs up due to the throw and the runner misses both laying out the catcher and the plate as it looks to me.

Do we know what the call on the field was?

Judging by the two coaches ejected I'd guess there was no call and the run scored.