NCAA Contact Rule

[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!

[Rich Ives]

B

The NCAA re-wrote/amended the collision rule this year. Please read it. It's 8-7.

Collision Rule

SECTION 7. The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent
collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The
intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid suchcollisions whenever possible.

When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is in
possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge: If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line with clear possession ofthe ball, the runner may make contact, slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). Contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate).
PENALTY—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the
fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time
of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner
to dislodge the ball.
PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from
the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the
interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.
PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner. If the contact occurs after a preceding runner touches home plate, the preceding runner is safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

(4) If the runner’s path to the base is blocked and (1), (2) and (3) are fulfilled, it is considered unavoidable contact.
(See Rule 2-54, Obstruction.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

B

The NCAA re-wrote/amended the collision rule this year. Please read it. It's 8-7.

Yes, but it's substantially the same.

B would have been the correct answer last year, too.

[MikeStrybel]

The answer is b according to the NCAA.

They cite 8-7a - Penalty

I understand that part of the ruling. However, the next part of the rule and penalty discuss what to do if the act is considered flagrant and malicious. It is difficult to see how a player veers away from the open part of the plate, makes deliberate contact with the fielder in an attempt to dislodge the ball and that does not qualify as flagrant. This is a crazy game we officiate, guys. Any guesses how often this call gets kicked this year?

Once again, is there a definition of flagrant/malicious contact in NCAA ball? Not an opinion, but an actual definition. Thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The answer is b according to the NCAA.

They cite 8-7a - Penalty

I understand that part of the ruling. However, the next part of the rule and penalty discuss what to do if the act is considered flagrant and malicious. It is difficult to see how a player veers away from the open part of the plate, makes deliberate contact with the fielder in an attempt to dislodge the ball and that does not qualify as flagrant. This is a crazy game we officiate, guys. Any guesses how often this call gets kicked this year?

Once again, is there a definition of flagrant/malicious contact in NCAA ball? Not an opinion, but an actual definition. Thanks.

There is a definition of flagrant -- it means malicious. Beyond that, you'll have to go to the dictionary.

[JJ]

According to Dictionary.com
"What is malicious intent? It means that whatever action you took was done with the clear intent to cause harm, damage, injury, or death."

That a bit more severe than trying to dislodge the ball. We get to decide which act the runner is trying to commit, and our penalty is meted out accordingly.

JJ