Malicious contact or nothing?

[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.

[BSUmp16]

MC is like porn - As Potter Stewart said "I know it when I see it"

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

The catcher did not set up in a manner to impede the runner.

"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."

The onus is on the runner to avoid the collision. He could have slid, remember?

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.

From what you described, very different from the OP, you could probably be justified in calling OBS. The defender's action intentionally impeded the runner - he would have to slow down or alter his path since sliding into first is not the norm. First basemen do not ordinarily position themselves there to accept a throw, therefore OBS can be applied.

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.

Two different animals, Mark: R3 can slide - it is routine and expected on close plays at the plate. The catcher was set up 3BE, not an inch away from the plate. As he is watching for his throw, I protect his vulnerability and penalize the player who acts recklessly. In the OP, the runner did.

I recall a video showing this exact play right after the MC rule was established. The runner was called safe and then ejected for his MC.

I hope your season is going well.

[Rich Ives]

Why was the catcher on 3BLE? He doesn't belong there. He belongs at the front edge of the plate because.

He can take the throw and slide-pivot into the path for the tag.

He allows access until he has the ball.

He has a clear path for the ball to reach him - no chance that the runner runs in front of him and get hit with the ball (right Piazza?).

He has an unimpeded throw to another base if that becomes necessary.

Stupid catching - he shares the blame (if there's blame to hand out). You can't stand on the tracks then blame the train can you?

AND

BTW - sliding slows you down so saying the runner should slide means the catcher caused the impedance and thus obstructed.

AND

You can slide and still do MC if you slide improperly so sliding doesn't get you off the hook.

Bad catcher - too bad.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The catcher did not set up in a manner to impede the runner.

"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."

The onus is on the runner to avoid the collision. He could have slid, remember?

I don't believe I've ever heard you be one of those "He gave the runner part of the base" people. But this smacks of it. Yes, the runner CAN slide, but forcing him to is obstruction. Yes, the onus is on the runner to avoid the collision, but if he does so at a point in time that the catcher doesn't have the ball, then he's been obstructed. The instant he does anything to avoid the collision, he's been obstructed.

Further... if he causes the runner to change his path, how can you say the catcher did not impede the runner.