Even if it's not a legal slide (and I haven't seen the play), that does NOT mean it's malicious contact. Those are two separate items and you can have either without the other (although I concede a legal slide with MC would be an unusual occurrence).

I agree that an illegal slide is not necessary malicious contact, I do agree with that statement. It's not an automatic.

He is what I see on this play. Catcher who is on one knee receives the ball prior to the arrival of the runner at home plate. The runner initiates contact with a leading shoulder into the upper chest/shoulder/head region of the catcher. It must be noted that the catchers (left) knee is on the 3rd baseline.

In Iowa, it has been a huge emphasis over the years to cut out malicious contact and penalize it justly. The umpires have been instructed, as well as the coaches, that if there is an imminent out the runner has a few options and going through someone is not one of them.

Logical or not, this is how I look at this play. If the runner were to slide feet first, the slide would be illegal if the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position (2-32-2b). In the OP, the runner did "slide", I think we can all agree on that. IMO, the contact was clearly made above the line higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position. That makes me question the intent of the running and the legality of the slide. Seeing that the runner led with his shoulder I have malicious contact. I wouldn't think twice about it.

-Josh

I don't. Agree that is. He's clearly trying to dive around the catcher and the catcher moves into his path. Pause it (admittedly difficult on this interface)... you'll see that catcher is inside WITHOUT the ball when runner, on the outside initiates the diving part of the play. He's already on his way down when catcher catches the ball. Not sure how we could expect an airborne player who was diving into an unoccupied space to somehow change direction when the space becomes occupied.

It's easy to analyze after the fact when you can pause and rerun in slo-mo. This gets really close to becoming an announcer.

Just kidding. At least we know the rules...

My very first thought was $-!+ happens. It looked to me like the collision wasn't that bad and maybe the catcher was faking. It looked like the runner tried to avoid contact. After watching it multiple times, I can see the catcher lunging into it ever so slightly. My ruling---Play on. Runner is out on tag.

must agree with the masses, no MC, tag your out.

one question, is it legal in College to leap like that?

It's legal at every level to leap. You just can't leap over a fielder, unless he's lying on the ground.

'Over' means over, not nearby.

NCAA does not have the prohibition on leaping, hurdling, diving, etc. that FED has.

The catcher is out in front of the batters box area. The runner is attempting to get down at such a time that he can reasonably make the play. The contact is not malicious or flagrant. All I have is an out.

Just baseball in that video...no MC.

I don't see anything illegal about this head first "dive" to the plate. It's not a head first slide, that is different look entirely. But nothing illegal about it. Catcher moved into his path at the last moment.