The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 08:38pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,240
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 08:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Sounds like MC, but you haven't said much about how the collision occurred.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 09:06pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,240
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".
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 09:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 09:57pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 10:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 25, 2012, 10:51pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
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.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 06:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 108
Send a message via Yahoo to 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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 07:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northwest suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 645
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 07:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 08:05am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 08:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
hmm,

All I know is when we wrote the original rule the two points I made were univerisal accepted by committee.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northwest suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 26, 2012, 10:38am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malicious Contact Gulf Coast Blue Baseball 11 Wed Jul 27, 2011 02:10pm
Malicious Contact harmbu Baseball 23 Fri May 02, 2008 11:16pm
Almost Malicious contact ? Chess Ref Softball 26 Mon Mar 12, 2007 02:09pm
Malicious contact SC Ump Softball 15 Tue Mar 15, 2005 03:53pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1