Malicious contact or nothing?

[jTheUmp]

After my game ended tonight, after changing out of my umpire gear I hung around for awhile to watch the JV game finishing up on the adjacent field, when I saw this situation:

R3, 1 out. Batter swings on strike 3 in the dirt, which caroms off F2 into foul territory towards 1st. BR starts running toward 1st. F2 fields the ball, throws to F3 for the second out. R3 breaks for home. F2 runs back to home and ends up setting up in foul territory on 3rd base line extended for the throw from F3. R3, running at full speed, steps on home plate and collides head-on with F2.
R3 made no attempt to slide (which I know he isn't required to do).

PU had nothing except an out at 1st and the run scoring.

What say you?

[mbyron]

Sounds like MC, but you haven't said much about how the collision occurred.

[jTheUmp]

The contact was basically torso to torso... F2 was somewhat crouched down (not on a knee, not quite squatting), R3 wasn't quite upright, but I wasn't sure if he stumbled trying to slow himself down or if he intentionally went low.

There was no arm extension by R3 or annything like that.

A bit more context, if it matters: Top of the 7th inning, Visiting team was down by 6 runs.

Sitting in the bleachers behind home plate, my first reaction was "That's MC".

[mbyron]

In Ohio at least, they want this called MC. The runner has to go around: if the fielder doesn't have the ball, we need to call OBS. If he does have the ball, then play on. Either way, the runner can't target the fielder.

If the throw takes him into the path of the runner who's going around, that's just a train wreck.

[DG]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

After my game ended tonight, after changing out of my umpire gear I hung around for awhile to watch the JV game finishing up on the adjacent field, when I saw this situation:

R3, 1 out. Batter swings on strike 3 in the dirt, which caroms off F2 into foul territory towards 1st. BR starts running toward 1st. F2 fields the ball, throws to F3 for the second out. R3 breaks for home. F2 runs back to home and ends up setting up in foul territory on 3rd base line extended for the throw from F3. R3, running at full speed, steps on home plate and collides head-on with F2.
R3 made no attempt to slide (which I know he isn't required to do).

PU had nothing except an out at 1st and the run scoring.

What say you?

Not enough info. Did R3 do something that was malicious, or did he just run into F2 on 3BLE?

[Tim C]

Under NFHS Rules there are two determiners if it is MC:

1) Was the runner trying to dislodge the ball,
2) Was the runner trying to injure the defenive player.

You either have to have #1 or #2. Pretty Clear.

T

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Under NFHS Rules there are two determiners if it is MC:

1) Was the runner trying to dislodge the ball,
2) Was the runner trying to injure the defenive player.

You either have to have #1 or #2. Pretty Clear.

T

It might be clear, but it's not in the rule book.

No runner has the right to run over a fielder, with or without the ball. I don't need to judge whether he's trying to dislodge the ball to call that MC.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It might be clear, but it's not in the rule book.

No runner has the right to run over a fielder, with or without the ball. I don't need to judge whether he's trying to dislodge the ball to call that MC.

Right, but that's not what he said. If you do judge he was trying to dislodge the ball, you should call MC, but you don't have to have an attempt to dislodge for it to be MC.

Runners don't have the right to run over a fielder, but just running over the fielder is not MC. Malicious contact requires Malice (hence the word). This means intent. Even a very hard very messy collision might not be MC if you don't see intent.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Runners don't have the right to run over a fielder, but just running over the fielder is not MC. Malicious contact requires Malice (hence the word). This means intent. Even a very hard very messy collision might not be MC if you don't see intent.

I agree with you here, but what I mean by "running over a fielder" is an intentional act. The runner sees where the fielder is and chooses to run there. And I'm saying that's MC, even if the runner didn't intend to dislodge the ball or do anything else. (Trying to dislodge the ball seems to me neither necessary nor sufficient to be MC, but that's another matter.)

I agree that a collision -- even an extreme one that injures one or more players -- can be perfectly legal, as when the throw draws the fielder into the path of the runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with you here, but what I mean by "running over a fielder" is an intentional act. The runner sees where the fielder is and chooses to run there. And I'm saying that's MC, even if the runner didn't intend to dislodge the ball or do anything else. (Trying to dislodge the ball seems to me neither necessary nor sufficient to be MC, but that's another matter.)

I agree that a collision -- even an extreme one that injures one or more players -- can be perfectly legal, as when the throw draws the fielder into the path of the runner.

Then you're not really disagreeing with what Tim wrote either.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

After my game ended tonight, after changing out of my umpire gear I hung around for awhile to watch the JV game finishing up on the adjacent field, when I saw this situation:

R3, 1 out. Batter swings on strike 3 in the dirt, which caroms off F2 into foul territory towards 1st. BR starts running toward 1st. F2 fields the ball, throws to F3 for the second out. R3 breaks for home. F2 runs back to home and ends up setting up in foul territory on 3rd base line extended for the throw from F3. R3, running at full speed, steps on home plate and collides head-on with F2.
R3 made no attempt to slide (which I know he isn't required to do).

PU had nothing except an out at 1st and the run scoring.

What say you?

From the your description I would not call MC. R3 had every right to be running has fast as he could from 3B to HP; R3 was not required to slide; and F2 was standing just past HP on the LF foul line extended in Foul Territory (in other words on the 1B side of the LF foul line extended).

MTD, Sr.

[rcaverly]

It has been my understanding that NFHS MC is to be called when we judge that contact between opponents is:
1. With excessive force; and/or,
2. With intent to injure

[MikeStrybel]

MTD -
The position of the catcher (in foul territory, past the plate) is irrelevant with regards to MC. R3 can score and still be charged with MC for his actions after touching home.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

MTD -
The position of the catcher (in foul territory, past the plate) is irrelevant with regards to MC. R3 can score and still be charged with MC for his actions after touching home.

Mike:

I agree with you 100%. While R3 cannot deliberately run over a Fielder who is illegally blocking his way to a Base he is trying to acquire, R3 is allowed to run at a speed that will allow him to beat the throw in his effort to reach a Base that he is trying to acquire where his path is not being Obstructed by a Fielder. AND, as the play was described, F2 was standing in such a manner that the R3 made contact with F2 an instant after he touched HP.

Lets change the play slightly: No one on base and B1 lays down a bunt along the 3B FL. B/R1 runs at full speed toward 1B in order to beat F2's throw to F3. (Keep in mind that B/R1 is allowed to overrun 1B in this type of play and not be subject to being put out for not being in contact with the Base.) F4 positions himself immediately behind 1B so that B/R1 will make contact with him an instant after touching 1B.

That said, I would have no problem with charging F2 in the OP and F4 in my Play with Obstruction as their positioning caused the Runner to slow down so as to avoid a "train wreck" and was put out.

MTD, Sr.

[jTheUmp]

Thanks for all the responses.

FWIW, the JV umpire and I had a parking-lot chat with the umpires who were getting dressed for the following varsity game.... One of them said he would've called MC, the other said "that's nothing".

Replaying it over in my head again, I could've lived with either MC or nothing, and I guess that's why they pay us the mediocre bucks.

Personally, I think I'd lean towards MC on a "player safety" basis, and towards nothing on a "don't want to fill out the ejection paperwork" basis.