Federation point of emphasis - Malicious contact

[Matt]

Originally Posted by john5396

In many discussions here, I have seen the threshold for MC being "intent to injure". In this years official .ppt, NFHS presents this:

Suggested Parameters:
•Was the contact the result of intentional excessive force?
•Was there intent to injure?
The absence of these two conditions does not guarantee that malicious contact did not exist, they only provide a starting point for consideration!

Does this set of parameters change your threshold for what is MC?

So, under the first criterion, would grabbing a fielder/runner most likely be MC?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Matt

So, under the first criterion, would grabbing a fielder/runner most likely be MC?

Stirring the pot today?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Stirring the pot today?

You know me...

And this was both serious and stirring.

[RPatrino]

Merely grabbing someone, to me, is not MC. There has to be an intent to do harm, in my opinion, for ordinary contact to rise to the level of MC.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Matt

You know me...

And this was both serious and stirring.

Depends on whether intentional excessive force is involved.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Depends on whether intentional excessive force is involved.

PLAY: R1, no outs. Ground ball to F4, who turns to throw to second but is (a) grabbed around his body and held, or (b) form-tackled to the ground by R1.

Obviously we have 2 outs in both (a) and (b) due to the INT by R1. I would have MC in (b), but not (a).

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Matt

So, under the first criterion, would grabbing a fielder/runner most likely be MC?

Thats why they pay us to make those decisions Matt. If you determine that it is malicious then penalize accordingly. Were given guidelines and latitude to to make a decision that will ALWAYS be open to someone else opinion.

However , your question is good food for thought.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Thats why they pay us to make those decisions Matt. If you determine that it is malicious then penalize accordingly. Were given guidelines and latitude to to make a decision that will ALWAYS be open to someone else opinion.

However , your question is good food for thought.

In determining malicious contact, the more NFHS tries to simplify it the more they confuse everyone. I'm gonna stick with the rule developed by Justice Potter Stewart in regards to ponography: "I know it when I see it."