What do you have?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The contact does not have to be malicious. If the raised arm was an attempt to dislodge the ball, it would be INT.

I was commenting on the coach's claim that the runner "threw an elbow at the catcher". Sure, I guess he could have thrown an elbow at the catcher's mitt and an umpire could rule it interference, but not malicious.

But my point wasn't to get into the intricacies of malicious contact. The OP says that he saw the arm go up, judged it to be an incidental defensive move by the runner and did not think it was either interference or malicious.

What do you ask your partner at that point? Do you ask him if your judgment sucks?

I understand asking for help if there's some element of the play you might reasonably think you missed. This umpire says he saw it, so he didn't miss it.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

OH Really!!!

You would much rather have to put up with throwing people out later for retailation, because the officiating team didn't get their job right the first. Correct. This isn't about you or me, its about the job the officiating crew does.

"Hey Blue, if you would have done your job the first time instead of trying to maintain your macho image, we wouldn't have had the brawl now."

Been there , Seen that!

Whatever.

Why in hell would I go for help on a play that I'VE seen and I'VE made a decision, when that help is more likely to end up being incorrect?

Not going for help is not a matter of ego. It's a matter of doing your job and not showing people that you can't handle it.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Matt

Whatever.

Why in hell would I go for help on a play that I'VE seen and I'VE made a decision, when that help is more likely to end up being incorrect?

Not going for help is not a matter of ego. It's a matter of doing your job and not showing people that you can't handle it.

Whatever??

Quote RSturgell, "Also the only reason for the very short conference was to ask if he seen an elbow thrown".

That sure don't sound to me like someone who was sure of what he saw.

Matt, as you know, there are several ways to skin a cat. We all have to do, what we have to do, to get through are games, maintain control, esteem and walk off that field knowing we gave the best job we can. Then go out there the next time, and do even better.

If your way works for you, then go for it.

[MD Longhorn]

I think I land between the two of you. If I saw an elbow and decided it was not malicious, I'm not going for help - as Matt says, it can't help. However, if, when the coach asked about the elbow, I was actually surprised by the question - and noticed nothing regarding the elbow coming up, I might ask my partner what he saw.

A good rule of thumb - if you're asked to go for help, and in your mind if you would change a call based on what partner says, then go for help. If you KNOW what you saw and whatever you're being asked to go for help on is not something you're possibly unclear on, don't.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by jicecone

There is no black and white method documented for these situations. Asking your partner for information in order to make a decision is acceptable.

Let's stick with the OP

As the runner is trying to get by the catcher the runner holds up his left arm to me it looked liked to duck the tag or avoid getting hit by the ball. The ball is jarred loose and the runner scored.

The ball was jarred loose so there is no question that the runner is safe.

The questions are: Did the runner commit MC or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. You do not go to your partner for this.


Why! For all practical purposes all the BU sees is the arm come up. From his vantage point he might view it as MC BUT the PU was right there and in his judgement he thought the player was protecting himself. What is there to ask.

I had a similar situation when I was BU. It was one of those light rain drizzle type days. There was a play at the plate where R3 collided with F2 knocking him down. From my vantage point it sure looked like MC. My partner was right there and did not rule MC. After the game I asked him about it. He said when R3 was about to slide he slipped big time and could not control himself and went into F2 which is what he explained to the coach. There was no retaliation becasue F2 KNEW what really happened.

In a nutshell this is not a case where one partner was not sure of a safe / out call. This is about judgement and when you have the dish and the play is right there you do not defer or confer with your partner to determine if someone gets tossed or not.

Pete Booth

[jicecone]

Pete, I am all for sticking to the OP.

"As the runner is trying to get by the catcher the runner holds up his left arm to me it looked liked to duck the tag or avoid getting hit by the ball."

That certainly leads me to believe he wasn't sure why is arm was raised.

Then this is followed up with another post,

"Also the only reason for the very short conference was to ask if he seen an elbow thrown".

Still sounds to me like he wasn't sure.

In your situation the PU clearly saw it better than you and didnt need your help. I agree, I wouldn't have asked for help either. But if he did clearly miss it and as a result you had to clean the mess up later because of what the def player perceived, then you might not have been as congenial to you partner as you were.

Your making the case for PU that CLEARLY sees what happened. I agree.

This OP is about one that didn't.

It may not look pretty afterwards, but there is nothing wrong in admitting you didn't see everything.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Tim C

When we wrote the FED MC rule we clearly defined the two possibilites that would define the act:

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

We tried to keep it simple.

T

Tim, can you clarify an interpretation we were given some time ago. We were told that malicious contact could be imposed on ANY player who attempts to injure an opposing player. The examples used were a catcher who slaps his mitt up aggressively in the face of a runner who has given himself up or the first baseman who slaps his mitt down viciously on top of the helmet of a runner who has slid into first base. In both of those situations, he told us the player would be ejected for MC. Was he incorrect? Thank you.

[Tim C]

I got tunnel vision on the OP.

Any PLAYER that tries to injure another has qualified for ejection under MC.

Great catch, thanks!

T

[BretMan]

The high school rules do state that either an offensive or defensive player may be guilty of malicious contact.

[MikeStrybel]

I don't think I have ever seen it called at high school on a defensive player. I once had a JUCO first baseman who used to drop his knee down onto the player sliding back on a pick off. He would aim for the hand or forearm. The first time caught me off guard. The second ended in his watching the game from the visitor bus in the parking lot. I should have had the first call and it nagged me for a while. Now, I try to be more vigilant.