Malicious contact or nothing?
 

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?

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

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".

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.

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

Well
 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

hmm,
 

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

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.

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.

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.

ô!ô
 

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

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.

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.
:D

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Simple, he didn't.

he is not forcing a runner to slide, nor am I. He is awaiting a throw and in a perfect world, that throw would be to the 3B side of the dish. I have rarely seen a high school catcher do everything I expect nor an outfielder make perfect throws every time.

Forcing a runner to slide is not obstruction unless I see a fake tag.

In the OP, the runner could have avoided the collision but CHOSE not to. Okay, I'll give you that it was HTBT but we all know what 3BE extended means. It doesn not mean on top of the dish. I have witnessed plenty of runners veer off to grab a bat the instant they touched and get ready to assist the following runner. The runners around here are pretty good at controlling their actions. From my time calling ball in Texas I know they are as well.

Hope your season is going well.

Why is that? Were you there? Do you know where the throw was coming from?

He can do that from either place. Buster Olney now sets up away from the place you suggest he must.

He did. Full access to the base was provided. He was behind it.

Again, how do you know where the throw was coming from or going to?

He does as well where he was positioned.

Wow. (roll eyes and sigh)

I will choose to punish those who break the rules. There is no rule against that catcher fielding a ball in foul territory. There is a rule against a HS runner doing what he did.

I didn't say he has to slide. He has that option and certainly in the play described it would have been the better choice. He also has the choice to tag the plate and pull up. Further, he can tag the plate and step around the catcher. 3BE means a couple feet away in my book.

I never argued that MC cannot occur with a slide. I am fully aware of the slide rules.

You can choose to allow a HS catcher to get crippled. I will do my best to protect him from reckless base running.

Have a good season.

Really?

You can slide as fast as you can run?

REALLY?

Making the runner slow down is not impeding?

WOW!

You forgot the sarcasm icon.

Unless the throw was coming from behind the plate he belongs in front of the plate.

If the throw was going somewhere else the catcher doesn't belong on 3BLE either. He belongs in front of the plate to call cuts.

If the runner has to alter his aproach because the catcher-without-the-ball is there then the runner was obstructed. Are you ready to call that?

Again - if you stand on the tracks should you blame the train?

Not this play. but what if the catcher jumps into the runners path. Obstruction? MC? If MC on who?

Stuff happens.

Forcing the runner to do ANYTHING (without possession of the ball) is obstruction. You know that. If the runner has to react to you AT ALL, it's obstruction.

Probably a bit too strong, Mike. For FED, anyway, a fielder without the ball can deny the runner PART of the base so long as he doesn't deny ALL of it. That might force the runner to adjust, yet it's not OBS.

Read the original post again. The catcher did not have the ball yet. He was in foul territory after delivering a throw to first base. The HS runner has the responsibility to avoid contact that will cause injury. You can justify this however you want but all you are doing is looking silly.

Mike beat me to the reply. As you have been informed, your suggestion is mistaken. The catcher did not force him to slide. The runner has several options, all of which have been enumerated, and chose the one which is illegal. The catcher did nothing illegal. End of story.

So "everyone" says that the catcher didn't have the ball AND that causing the runner to alter his approach is obstruction.

Obstruction is illegal.

Then it gets suggested that the catcher did nothing illegal.

REALLY?

The catcher was flat out not positioned properly. He shares any blame for both the illegal act and the stupid positioning. You cannot stand on the tracks and blame only the train.

Off to Syracuse to listen to a university band concert with my son participating. Have a nice day.

Yes, Rich, really.

Rich, I don't know why you insist that the catcher did something illegal. He was positioned in foul territory after making a throw to first and does not hinder access to the plate.

Did you even read the relevant rules?
8-3-2 "If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then obstruction is ignored."

Got it? I cannot make it any clearer. The runner was safe. He acquired the base. No obstruction. END...OF...STORY.

So, now we have the issue of malicious contact.
8-3-2 then states, "Malicious contact supersedes obstruction." Even though there was no obstruction, if you insist there was, it is erased by the runner's actions.

You can insist that he the catcher did something illegal but you are wrong. That is not my opinion, it is directly from the rule book.

Enjoy the concert.

Sure you can. MC supersedes OBS.

Of course, not enough of us call OBS on these plays. So you're half right there.

That's a good thing since calling OBS after a player has scored would be contrary to the rules.