NCAA Contact Rule

[MikeStrybel]

from the NCAA preseason test:

R2, one out. The batter singles up the middle and R2 attempts to score. The plate umpire has executed his mechanics perfectly and is ready for a possible collision tag. He notices there is a small portion of the plate available to the base runner. R2 does not slide to the open portion of the plate but veers toward the catcher and makes contact above the waist after the catcher has caught the ball. The contact was not flagrant but the base runner did not make a legitimate attempt to reach the plate but instead, attempted to dislodge the ball. The catcher dropped the ball on the collision.

a. The runner is safe and the ball remains live.
b. The base runner is out and the ball is dead.
c. The runner is out and the ball remains live.
d. The base runner is out and ejected and the ball is dead

I am trying to understand what a slide away from the open part of the plate, making contact above the waist in an effort judged to be an attempt to dislodge the ball is not flagrant or malicious.

2-30 defines flagrant collison as: A collision between a baserunner and fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball.

I recognize that the question states that it isn't flagrant contact, but then tells us that the runner solely tried to dislodge the ball without attempting a legitimate reach of the base.

I am content with my score and merely offer this question to help me understand what is expected before the whole mess begins next month. Thank you!

[bob jenkins]

Flagrant ==> Malicious ==> Attempt to injure.

So, in the test question, it's "only" an illegal slide, and thus an out. If it was flagrant, the player would be ejected.

[jkumpire]

Mike,

I think the NCAA is trying to give guidence on what is or isn't malicious. I'd be willing to bet that when people started looking at malicious contact ejections they heard and or saw a significant number of them being for hits above the waist which were not intent to injure, just to dislodge the ball. So the committee decided to add the language to help umpires fine tune their judgment.

At least that's what I took from what I heard in Chicago and have seen other places. Bob, I assume you were in Chicago, did you get the same impression?

[MikeStrybel]

I was in Chicago too and found the obstruction discussion ultimately confusing. My association is still discussing a play that trouble us and had to have Jim Paronto specifically rule on it!

I have looked over the book, supplement, CCA, and J/R but cannot find a definition for Malicious contact being an intent to injure. Unless we are clairvoyant, it is difficult at best to ascretain whether the player intended to injure the other. As with this question, the intent was to dislodge the ball. That leads me to believe that his goal was not to score but rather to put enough force on the opposing player where they would be forced to drop it. How is that not an attempt to injure?

Uggghhh. Thanks again for helping me understand this rule application.

[Umpmazza]

The correct answer is "C"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

The correct answer is "C"

Not in NCAA, which is the rules code under discussion.

[jicecone]

I haven't done college ball in a while but, one thing for sure, in your games if you are letting a player attempt to dislodge a ball instead of getting to the bag and then playing with this fine line of malicious or not malicious, then your in for some long afternoons. Not to say that **it dosn't happen.

Why don't they just define malicious as only being called if the defensive player is "declared injured?"

Sometimes, you just have to officiate!