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

[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.

[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.

[Tim C]

All I know is when we wrote the original rule the two points I made were univerisal accepted by committee.

[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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Tim C

All I know is when we wrote the original rule the two points I made were univerisal accepted by committee.

Tim, it was clear all those years ago in our rule interpretation meetings too. Look for the two things you mentioned and know that the runner's action supersedes any obstruction you may have.

[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.