Malicious contact or nothing?

[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