What do you have?

[RSturgell]

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

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RSturgell

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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by matt

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

[UES]

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...

[ozzy6900]

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.

[BretMan]

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.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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.

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.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by RSturgell

Is there anything different that could have been done? Thanks

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.

[Matt]

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.

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.

[MikeStrybel]

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

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

[cbfoulds]

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.

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.

[RSturgell]

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.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

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!

[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