Malicious Contact - should there be more of a penalty

[PeteBooth]

On another Board, ther has been a discussion about Malicious Contact, concerning Obstruction.

In OBR and leagues that use OBR. B1 hits a single to right. Rounding First and it appears he is going to second, B1 is obstructed by F3, so we signal that's obstruction and since B1 made a legitimate attempt to get to the next base, chances are we are going to protect that runner to at least second pending any other post obstruction evidence.

B1 in going to second base cleans F4's clock . After the play in games played by OBR rules, the runner is still awarded second base since he was protected there, but we eject the offender. The TEAM does not suffer for any of B1's actions.

In FED, Malicious Contact supercedes obstruction. So even though B1 is protected to second base, doesn't give him the right to clean someone's clock in FED without an out being recorded.

In football, when the defense stops the offense but some defensive linemen roughs the QB, the TEAM is penalized 15 yards PLUS an automatic first down. So the offense could have had say 3rd and 25, but because the QB was roughed they now have a new set of downs.

In basketball whenever a flagrant foul is committed, the offense gets 2 free throws PLUS the ball - Again the TEAM suffers because of one Player.

Now baseball, the TEAM is not penalized for the actions of one of their players unless that player happens to be the star player and gets ejected. IMO not enough of a penalty.

Malicious contact is defined as behavior meant to injure another and IMO should be dealt with severly. Reagrdless if there was obstruction or whatever, the Malicious contact should take presidence and at the very least 1 out recorded if not more. The TEAM as in the other sports needs to be penalized to deter the behavior.

What say you

Pete Booth

[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.

[greymule]

Fouls resulting from illegal contact are a significant part of football, basketball, and hockey. The routine violations are not unsportsmanlike--players commit them usually simply because they have been beaten on a play. If you can outmaneuver your opponent, he may have to foul you, hold you, interfere with you, etc. Therefore, the rules contain specific penalties to be applied for the various offenses and levels of violation. And flagrant fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct are treated more seriously than ordinary violations.

But baseball contact fouls are much rarer. The kind of violations Pete mentioned are not routine--an umpire may go a whole season without seeing one--so their effect on a play is not as thought out and defined as it is in the other sports. We don't have umpires announcing "punched the second baseman, that's an out and the other runner returns" or "tripped the runner as he was rounding third, the runner scores and F5 sits out two innings."

I'll go with OBR, where the unsportsmanlike offense is handled separately from the play. But I do think that malicious play should be penalized severely off the field. The same goes for players who kick dirt on or spit on umpires. Throw him out, suspend him, even arrest him, but if he scored and then did it, the run still counts.

[BJ Moose]

I hate the expression "malicious contact" when doing OBR or OBR modified kid games because it is a FED term in my book.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct is really the same thing, and even under straight OBR I can deal with a player who is guilty of malicious contact..oops.

But as elsewhere stated, can't get an extra out. But certainly an EJECTION is a steep and suitable penalty.

[Bfair]

If I felt malicious contact caused a defender to lose control of the ball, then I provide benefit of doubt to the defense. They will get the out in question. That's my judgment, not a rule interpretation. Malicious contact is a deliberate act. The action could impact the fielder's ability to gain an out elsewhere, and that should not be forgotten if further action of the fielder were possible. The defense will gain the benefit of doubt once again. That does not mean randomly declaring outs to penalize the offense. The playing action will dictate that judgment.

If the malicious contact occurred without the ability to retire the offense, then there is no need to apply the extra penalty if the rule you play by does not call for it. If the action is of such flagrancy that I feel further penalty is needed, then I will recommend further suspension of the player to the league, and it then becomes their decision if further penalty applies.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[spillguy]

If there are multiple base runners at the time, I suppose you could rule that the conduct broke up a potential double play and call a second base runner out on the actions of a team mate. It would have to be pretty obvious in my book that the defence had a chance at the double play however, before I called the second out. Ejection and an out would seem penalty enough. Can always recommend further susension in extreme cases as stated above.