What do you have?
 

13U game this summer played under high school rules. On a play at the plate. A throw comes from left center field which pulls the catcher up the 3rd base line roughly 10-15 feet. The runner and ball get to the same spot about the same time. The catcher tries to catch the ball and swipe tag the runner. 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. 1st the defensive coach said the runner had to slide (he was to far away from the plate to attempt a slide), 2nd the defensive coach said the runner threw an elbow at the catcher. I did not see it that way and went and spoke to the base umpire. He did not see an elbow "thrown" either. We let the play stand with the runner scoring. Is there anything different that could have been done? Thanks

A. A runner never has to slide.
B. This is your call, not your partner's. Don't go for help on this one. If you think not ejecting causes problems, just wait until you eject on the word of a partner who has other responsibilities.

+10

no interference, no slide rule infraction, and if no flagerant elbow - it's a verbal "That's Nothing" with a safe sign mechanic...runner scores. The defensive coach is trying to get an out call after HIS own player made a horsesh!t throw that caused the whole mess in the first place. In my opinion, I don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get a "second" opinion from your partner ON THE ELBOW part only... maybe from his angle, he could have seen something that you may have missed because of how the play developed. Hopefully, your discussion was brief... "Did you see the runner throw an elbow - No - ok, coach, he's got nothing as well...let's go back to work" Just my two cents...

I have a serious problem with holding "board meetings" about plays at the plate. Call me "old school" but I am right there, among the offense and defense and in the correct position. So why do I want to involve my partner who can be anywhere from 90'+ away? Just to please a coach? If he does not like my decision, then he can leave. I do not believe in "joint decisions". Yes, yes..... I know that this is not the thinking of the 21st Century but like I said, I am old school. No one can convince me that a person 90'+ away has a better view than I (if I am where we are supposed to be).

Just a thought.

What do you have? Apparently, a clueless coach who is grasping at straws to try talking you into an out that simply isn't there.

You saw the play. You saw the runner raise his arm. You judged that whatever the runner did was not malicious contact. End of story. There's nothing to check with your partner about.

We cannot delegate judgment
 

I can see the use of a "board meeting" at the plate to determine the facts. We had a situation like this with the Seattle Mariners this year. After a collision at the plate, PU apparently thought the catcher dropped the ball, and called the runner safe. DM argues, an umpire conference is held, and it is determined that factually, the catcher did not drop the ball. PU corrects himself, declares the runner out. As I understand MLB, this was proper (and actually got the call right.)

In the OP, though, the defense was arguing a case of judgment on intent. I'm not sure if my organization agrees (Little League is getting a little "board meeting" happy), but I can't imagine that I'd ever go to another umpire to determine the intent of the players right in front of me.

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

I can respect those that feel differently but, bottom line here, you have to do what you have to, to make the best decsions as an official that you can, while still maintaining control of your game.

I would LOVE to see someone maintain control of a game after tossing someone after a conference resulting in an ejection.

In other words, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm all about holding people accountable, but that just isn't going to happen with a conference here.

I agree with those who feel that getting a second opinion is rarely a bad thing. You made your call and now have the opportunity to confirm it or accept that something else may have happened. Provided that you don't delay the game too long, it is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged by some associations. While it was HTBT, it sounds like you two got the call handled correctly.

For what it's worth, malicious contact can also be initiated by the catcher. Maybe your partner saw a different angle and can help you determine guilt. If the pros can do it with all of their training and experience, so can you. Don't feel bad about being second guessed at a Freshman game.

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

Tee can correct me if I'm remembering wrong, but under HS [FED] rules, I believe that an attempt to dislodge the ball IS, definitionally, "malicious".

"Malice/ malicious" does not relate primarily to the severity or intensity of the act or contact; rather it is determined by the conscious intent to do harm/ wrong [and in some cases, willful indifference to the probability of doing harm].

I'm not disagreeing with dash that the raised arm could be INT: merely asserting that it COULD, if intentionally done to interfere by dislodging the ball, also merit an EJ for malicious contact.

And, FWIW, count me among those who doubt that a conv which results in a delayed MC call is a first-class idea, even on get-it-right-at-all-costs grounds.
MC is a lot like Potter Stewart's rule about pornography: I may not be able to give you an iron-clad all-encompassing definition, but I know it [immediately] when I see it.

A little more info
 

The other official I asked was in C position. Also the only reason for the very short conference was to ask if he seen an elbow thrown. We went back to playing. Thank you for all the input though.

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!

Yep,
 

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

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Let's stick with the OP

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

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.

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.

Thanks Mike,
 

I got tunnel vision on the OP.

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

Great catch, thanks!

T

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

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.