Malicious Contact - should there be more of a penalty

[Jim Porter]

FED rules aside, my main argument with Pete has been that the fact the fielder has the ball does not give the umpire permission to suddenly call an out because he wants to add a penalty for the malicious contact. FED has done that. To my knowledge, LL has not. The out call stems from the concurrent interference.

If the obstructed runner should intentionally crash into a fielder without the ball, let's say because the runner thought the fielder looked at him funny, there would be no basis in the rule for an out call. The only penalty for malicious contact is an ejection.

That is similar to a situation in which a runner is advancing without liability to be put out, as in protection following Type B obstruction. The results of the play are irrelevant since the fielder is awarded the base.

If there was a balk when the pitcher threw to F3 stationed away from the base, would you call an out on the runner if he flew an elbow at the first baseman on his way by? The first baseman has the ball. It's a live ball award - the same as a protected runner following Type B obstruction.

If the catcher stopped a pitch with his helmet which awards R3 home, and the catcher was just standing there watching the runner walk by, and the runner gives the catcher a right hook, are you calling an out? The catcher is in possession of the ball. It's a live ball award. The same as a runner who is protected because of obstruction.

FED can rule the way FED wants to rule. That doesn't mean the whole world should adopt their thinking. In some cases, they do not have the right answer. To say that one type of malicious contact without a play requires an out, but another type of malicious contact without a play doesn't require an out, and all based on who has the ball in his glove is inconsistent at best, and short-sighted at worst.