Restricted to dugout?

[Kevin Finnerty]

Malicious is the wrong word for what it actually is most of the time.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Malicious is the wrong word for what it actually is most of the time.

But it sounds so "bad" doesn't it?

[bniu]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Depending on how many coaches there are, you may have to restrict a player rather than ejecting them. Even an ejected player must be under school approved adult supervision so if there is no one to "supervise" the player outside the field (on the bus), he might have to stay in the dugout. Here in CT, even mommy or daddy cannot supervise the ejected student unless with the coach's approval, mommy or daddy take junior home.

he's been ejected and still mouthing off to you. in high school ball, i'll hold the head coach responsible for everything that comes out of his dugout. The player continues to mouth off, i'll ask the coach to do something about it and maybe politely remind the coach that stuff in his dugout is his responsibility. If he can't control the player or can't come up with a solution, coach gets ejected and thus, can take all the ejected players with him away from the area. If he's the only coach, tough luck on the team, forfeit.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bniu

he's been ejected and still mouthing off to you. in high school ball, i'll hold the head coach responsible for everything that comes out of his dugout. The player continues to mouth off, i'll ask the coach to do something about it and maybe politely remind the coach that stuff in his dugout is his responsibility. If he can't control the player or can't come up with a solution, coach gets ejected and thus, can take all the ejected players with him away from the area. If he's the only coach, tough luck on the team, forfeit.

What are you talking about?

Ozzy is talking about the coach being legally responsible for the players wherabouts, while under his supervision. A player gets ejected and sent outside of the dugout and gets attacked, molested, beaten up or any other thing that could possibly physically happen to him, for whatever stupid reason. Well guess who is responsible for the kid. Especially for an away game.

Sure you don't care and I am not saying you should but, just maybe a good lawyer may convince a jury otherwise and hopefully you and the coach both have good insurance coverage.

Possible, I don't know but, there is always a first time for everything.

[johnnyg08]

Yep...in FED games...I'm erring on the side of safety for the kids. The FED and our State High School governing board has always supported decisions based on the safety of the participants.

[Robert E. Harrison]

How would you rule on the runner coming to home and his cleats dig into the hard dirt around the plate area as him starts his slide and he bowls over the catcher. The catcher of course has the ball and is waiting to apply the tag.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

How would you rule on the runner coming to home and his cleats dig into the hard dirt around the plate area as him starts his slide and he bowls over the catcher. The catcher of course has the ball and is waiting to apply the tag.

Not quite sure what your saying here. If he is sliding then it must be a legal slide. Are you saying that his cleats dig in so hard that his body pops up and bowls over the catcher? Like stuck in the mud? I have never ever seen ANYTHING like that. But for discussion lets just say it happened.

Did the runner use and/or extend his arms when contact was made? Was it just a clumsy collision between two players? The umpire has to make those decisions and rule accordingly. Just because two players collide, it does not mean that the contact was malicious or intentional. When two people try occupy a less than 2-SF area anywhere, at the same time, let alone on a playing field, contact almost always happens.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Not quite sure what your saying here. If he is sliding then it must be a legal slide. Are you saying that his cleats dig in so hard that his body pops up and bowls over the catcher? Like stuck in the mud? I have never ever seen ANYTHING like that. But for discussion lets just say it happened.

.

You've never seen a spike catch and the runner fall forward? Must be a young guy. (Stuff like that doesn't happen much with molded cleats).

[Robert E. Harrison]

There is no intent on this play. The ground around home plate is hard as concrete due to tarps and no soaking water. The runner's metal spikes dug in and he was catapulted through the catcher. The catcher is put on his butt due to the collision. I have had it maybe 5 times in my career.
In no way can this be construed as a legal slide.

[dash_riprock]

I'm confused.

[Robert E. Harrison]

The catcher has the ball waiting to apply a tag out in front of home plate. The runner is coming in and starts a slide, but his cleats catch in the hard ground and sends him head first into the catcher putting the catcher on his butt. The play looks a little like Pete Rose July 14, 1970: Rose crashes into American League catcher Ray Fosse but there is no intent due to the cleats catching. It is not a legal slide. What you end up with is the defensive coach wanting an out and ejection and the offensive coach saying no intent so no MC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

In no way can this be construed as a legal slide.

I'm also confused.

If you have decided that it's not a legal slide, then call the runner out.

It doesn't seem to be malicious, so no ejection.

If the actions prevented further play, then kill it (don't allow the offense to benefit).

[Tim C]

There are two deciding factors as to intent of malicious contact:

1) Was the player trying to dislodge the ball or,

2) Was the player trying to injure the other player?

Outside of those two determiners we rule that it is just baseball (sometimes just bad baseball).

T

[Robert E. Harrison]

Catcher has ball in front of plate. Catcher gets the daylights knocked out of him because the runners foot/cleat gets caught and prevents him from sliding so he centers the catcher and puts him on his butt. No intent and no slide.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

Catcher has ball in front of plate. Catcher gets the daylights knocked out of him because the runners foot/cleat gets caught and prevents him from sliding so he centers the catcher and puts him on his butt. No intent and no slide.

Did he attempt to slide? If so, it still needs to be a legal slide, no? I didn't read the word "intentional" in the book, but I could be wrong. I'll check when I get home.