Would you eject, #2?

[David B]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I think I got it...definite EJ on this one under FED. Suppose 1) we don't usually see this type of play in FED ball around here and 2) we sometimes see it in Legion and play on. Need to tighten up a bit on my MC - I see where you can't run through the catcher as badly as this in FED. Most of the MC calls I've made in FED are of the throwing arms out into a fielder and are really obvious - plays like this my first instinct is "he is not required to slide and that's just a good hard play." But, in FED, it's more and it's MC. Got it.

Basically fielder has the ball, the runner has to avoid the contact. He can slide or try to go around, but never through.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by David B

Basically fielder has the ball, the runner has to avoid the contact. He can slide or try to go around, but never through.

Agreed. Typically, when the fielder is holding the ball, they'll try to get in a pickle, slide, or run around (which usually results in the out of baseline out)...never usually the sitch in the video.

[Welpe]

Oh yeah. That's an easy one. Gone.

[JRutledge]

This is an easy ejection.

Peace

[biggravy]

Gone.

Hate the white shirts.

On the play before the collision, lol at the PU doing the reverse cha cha all the way back from 3B and I sure didn't see him see the runner touch the plate.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Not only is this an ejection in FED games, it would be an ejection in most amateur adult leagues as well. In the OBR-based adult league I work, they use the NCAA FPSR for force plays and a "No Collision" (umpire judgment applies) rule that is strictly enforced by the umpires.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

This definitely a MC ejection per NFHS rules.

Monday night MTD, Jr., had a boys' 12U travel league game that uses NFHS rules and had a 12 year old pull a Pete Rose on Ray Fosse play. The player's coach was none to happy about the ejection.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David B

Basically fielder has the ball, the runner has to avoid the contact. He can slide or try to go around, but never through.

1) The video wouldn't load for me, so I didn't see the specific play.

2) While David's statement is correct, it doesn't mean that the only call for "going through" is MC. MC requires "intent to injure." You could also have plain old, garden variety interference here. (Runner is out, but not ejected).

3) Based on the other comments, the MC (and not just interference) is the correct call in the play presented, but let's not always jump to that conclusion.

[jkumpire]

Like the creme colored shirts, and that is garden variety malicious contact. R3 hits the road. Quickly.

[bigjohn]

What if catcher didn't have the ball, obstruction, do you still eject #3??????

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

What if catcher didn't have the ball, obstruction, do you still eject #3??????

Yes. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.

[bigjohn]

NFHS Forum: Is this malicious?

go tell these guys Welpe!

[asdf]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

NFHS Forum: Is this malicious?

go tell these guys Welpe!

Go back to the other board, troll.

[asdf]

Anyone see the nice job of removing the mask by the PU in the sequence following the obvious ejection?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

NFHS Forum: Is this malicious?

go tell these guys Welpe!

Atl Blue and Bob have it right. I'm not going to go fight your (misguided) battles for you.