Restricted to dugout?
 

I have seen this play a few times in the last few years at the FED level so in MN that typically means 10th grade - 12th grade "varsity" players where B/R will step on F3's foot while running to 1B. The easy no-call is if F3's foot is in the middle of 1B and he gets stepped on.

The trickier one is when F3's foot is where it's supposed to be and he gets stepped on.

What do you watch for and assuming F3's foot is where it is supposed to be, have you ever called the B/R for anything? I played a lot of baseball in my day and I've never/ever stepped on F3's foot even one time. So while I have never called anything in the times I've seen it, I want to know who has called it and how you dealt with the offensive coach and afterward if you'd call it again?

Thanks guys,
John

johnny,

I don't believe I've ever witnessed this in a game.

If I did, and I believed the runner's action intentional, I would bang and toss him for MC in a NY minute.

JM

P.S. Why is your post titled "Restricted to dugout?"

Well, I titled it that way since while we might not be able to judge MC, maybe we could restrict him, teach the rest of the team a lesson and save the player from a 1 game suspension in MN. Thanks for your reply.

Unless you are 150% sure that it is intentional, and I am not even sure you can even tell then, don"t go there.

I have seen players take that last leap and have no idea where they were going to land but, were just trying to get to first. God bless the player that has a coach that teachs him how to play first base.

If the B/R's last stride has a little extra effort, i.e., trying stomp on something (a foot).
Had it happen once and luckily the kid missed. One team back home was notorious for trying. That coach didn't last long.

Intent=Ejection

Pretty simple.

You don't restrict players in FED. You either eject them or you don't.

Which rule permits you to restrict a legal player to the dugout?

Illegal players and subs are out and restricted, but restriction is never a penalty applied to a player who is in the game legally. See 2-27.

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.

Let's take a breath:
 

Prior to 2010 it was impossible to "restrict" a player. The only difference was when a player is ejected he can be required to stay in the dugout to be supervised.

According to the NFHS Rules Committee the safety of the player is more important than the philosophy that the ejected person be out of sight and out of mind.

Starting with 2010 the Rules Committee is reviewing the possibility that "restriction" of a probably concussed player (that a coach refuses to remove from the contest) is under certain circumstances the correct path.

While restriction of players is not yet a tool for the umpires game managment bag it is slowly reaching the discussion stages at the NFHS National Meetings.

Regards,

Dammit, Tim! I'm an umpire, not a doctor! ;)

It's not our job to "save" the player from anything. And, even if he stays in the dugout, it's still an ejection.

If it's clearly an accident, treat it as such. If it's clearly as intentional, eject and MC. If you can't tell, address it so both teams know you saw it. An "accident" won't happen again.

In the spirit of discussion...it appears as though the rule does give us some latitude for what we might judge "minor" infractions to restrict a player to the dugout.

behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play

Other things that give us an opportunity to "restrict"

For discovery of an illegal player (2-36-3) on offense by an umpire or either team, that player shall be called out and restricted to the bench/dugout for the duration of the game.

An illegal player discovered on defense shall be restricted to the bench/dugout for the duration of the game.

A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

g. commit any unsportsmanlike act to include, but not limited to,

1. use of words or actions to incite or attempt to incite spectators
demonstrations,

2. use of profanity, intimidation tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably
upon any other person, or taunting or baiting. The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting that is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under circumstances including race, reli- gion, gender or national origin.

3. use of any language intended to intimidate,

4. behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play;

5. be in live ball territory (excluding team’s bullpen area) during the opponent’s infield practice prior to the start of the game.

6. any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to
dispute a judgment call by an umpire.

For violation of g (6), both the head coach and the offend-
ing coach shall be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game, or if the offense is judged severe enough, the umpire may eject the offender and
restrict or eject the head coach.

So it looks like based on my OP, the option we have is a "warn" then eject if we can't prove malicious contact if B/R steps on F3's foot that is in the proper place on 1B. It does not appear (as others pointed out, "thank you") that we have a "restrict to the dugout" option on this type of play.

I don't have to "prove" MC..... it's MC if I call it!

Hmmm,
 

We teach in Oregon MC is dictated by one of two actions:

1) Is the player trying to dislodge the ball from the fielder,
2) Is the player trying to injure the fielder?

All other activities that include contact are just "baseball."

Works pretty well in our state.

Regards,

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

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

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.

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.

Dislodge or Injure?
 

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.

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).

His metal spikes dug in and he went through the catcher.
 

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.

I'm confused.

How are you confused?
 

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.

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).

Well,
 

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

How can my play be confusing?
 

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.

As described, I'd probably have nothing except a "tag out."

An earlier post from you indicated that there was (by definition) something illegal. If so, then call interference, and return the other runners.

So the runner accidently gets his cleat caught and in the middle of the accident decides that he will wipe out the catcher.

Well answer the questions and make a decision just like every other umpire has to.

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

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

You have to be the judge. If it looks like he tripped on his feet and plowed the catcher for it then don't eject for MC. If he looks like he plowed the catcher with intent to injure then eject.

I don't see how anyone could call what Pete Rose did to Ray Fosse anything but malicious. That is as good a textbook example as you will ever see.

Back to subject of post. In NC we eject for 6 things, as prescribed by the state. Fighting, taunting, obscene gestures, disrespectfully addressing an umpire, profanity directed at an official or opponent, and biting (recently added, geez..). All other things that call for ejections in the rule book will be restrictions to the dugout for players and coaches. You could get restricted and then ejected, if while in the dugout commit one of the 6 things that will get you ejected. If a player is ejected for one of the 6 things it is not our responsibility any longer, he must leave the dugout and stands area. There is generally an administrator at the game, AD or assistant, principal or assistant, and/or a police officer or sheriff's deputy. There are severe penalties for ejections (suspensions, fines for coaches, etc.), not so much for restrictions. There is no such thing as ejected player who can't leave because he will be unattended.

I have had restrictions before but never ejected for one of the 6 things, never head to. I have only been in one game where one occured, my partner ejected the coach for profanity directed at an official. Game ended in forfeit because the ejected coach had no assistant. Get on the bus Gus...

So you do not eject for MC???? Does your state not allow protest or is that SC?

That's SC. I grew up in NC; when friends want to make fun of me, they always get it confused with SC... I can't see how.

You could never lose a protest for not calling OR calling MC. It's pure judgment on the part of the umpire.

Coach: That's malicious contact.
Umpire: No, it wasn't.

End of story.

Now, if you call malicious contact and do NOT eject (it was malicious but was an "accident"), that's a different story. It's always nice to not put words into the coach's protest. See above.

Many states do not allow protests, including Ohio.

SC is the only state I know of that does not allow appeals (they kept the old FED rule).

MC is not one of the 6 things that get you ejected and subsequently suspended for games (min 2). It is restriction to the dugout only (and of course that means you are through for the day), along with all the other things that rule book says eject for but state want's restriction.

You're right. Appeals, not protests.