If you call this MC in FED, you're a plumber.

Explain your thought process on that. What about that slide would make calling MC correct but nitpicking (or, alternatively, how do you define being a plumber)?

Yeah, based on some of the FED guys I've seen work, I'd think there would be people who would call this MC too. (Not that I agree)

A couple of thoughts/questions on some recent posts.

1) What part of this slide was NOT a cross body block? Just curious, because Holliday made contact with the side of his body, hip area, as I see it. There was actual no slide per se, just a sideways dive into the player behind the bag and incidental contact with the bag.

2) This to me, was not an attempt to injure. I could see some calling it MC for FED, not in NCAA. I have FPSR violations in both though. The part that borders on MC for ME is the fact that the target for the runner was the player trying to turn the DP, not the bag. Incidental contact is where the runner slides into the base using a 'normal' feet first slide and then contacts the fielder within the confines of the rule. In my opinion, there is no place for a 'take out' slide in FED, at any base, in any situation.

Then it wasn't MC

Incidental contact = legal contact

Illegal contact = interference (that's the FPSR, although contact isn't needed in all cases to have an illegal slide)

MC = intent to injure.

Um ... what do you think MC means?

Malicious is a real word. It has a real meaning. Go look it up if you don't believe me. It comes from the word MALICE. Inherent in "malicious" is the INTENT to injure. Malicious does not mean violent - it means with the intent to harm.

I didn't say I would call MC, did I ? I said it 'bordered' on it. There are some that would call it MC, I know that. There is an aspect of umpire judgement that comes to play in this case, correct?

I have this same question. If this is not a cross body block, what is an example of one (serious question)?

I do Little League (and some high school). I see intent to take out the second baseman, which may be not be illegal in the bigs, but translates to malicious contact for me at the levels I do.

Rita

That might a stretch in FED. Can you enforce FPSR, and malicious contact I suppose would be the better question. I can see that, but most likely not on a play of this type.

I don't think there is any way calling MC is correct in this situation, even in FED. I believe there are guys out there, like johnnyg said, that would call MC, but I don't believe it to be correct.

I've kind of been pondering this myself as well. If this isn't a cross body block, then what is?

That's been answered.

If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

From the MLBUM

The initial contact was with the ground, not the fielder. He hit the dirt, slid, and rolled. The exact thing they are saying is NOT a roll block.

No, the initial contact was with the player and the base, the ground was not contacted until after or once contact had been made. There was no slide ahead of the base, or anything that resembled a slide by any normal definition, prior to contact or simultaneously made with contact.

Crashing baseman?
 

He's allowed to crash in MLB. He is not allowed to crash in NCAA or FED.

The slide may have been legal, but the upper body, arms wailing out toward the baseman was not legal. Given the slide over the bag, directly into the player, I would eject him for crashing into the baseman. I have Interference, intentionally slashing with his arms and upper body while trying to trip up the second baseman.

More like reckless indifference or deliberate blindness, while causing injury to another person.

"the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result."

Who or what are you quoting?