Malicious contact or nothing?

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

I disagree that trying to dislodge the ball is criterial for MC. Merely slapping at the glove without a collision is not MC, so it's not sufficient. Running over a fielder with no obvious attempt to dislodge the ball or intent to injure is MC, so it's not necessary.

[Tim C]

So what the intent of the rule is to include umpire judgement following the two identifiers of MC.

I don't think we are disagreeing just splitting hairs.

T