The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 16, 2014, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 177
Federation point of emphasis - Malicious contact

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:
標as the contact the result of intentional excessive force?
標as 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 16, 2014, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by john5396 View Post
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:
標as the contact the result of intentional excessive force?
標as 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?
No. It's (essentially) what I've always used.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 16, 2014, 05:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by john5396 View Post
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:
標as the contact the result of intentional excessive force?
標as 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?
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 16, 2014, 06:18pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
So, under the first criterion, would grabbing a fielder/runner most likely be MC?
Stirring the pot today?
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 16, 2014, 09:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
Stirring the pot today?
You know me...

And this was both serious and stirring.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 17, 2014, 06:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via AIM to RPatrino Send a message via Yahoo to 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 P.

-----------------------
We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 17, 2014, 08:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
You know me...

And this was both serious and stirring.
Depends on whether intentional excessive force is involved.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 17, 2014, 08:33am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 17, 2014, 11:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 19, 2014, 03:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Mc

Some of you probably remember that I was one of the two authors of the original Malicious Contact Rules for the National Federation.

When we were asked to develop the rule we were told by the NFSH: "try to keep it simple and eliminate judgment as much as possible."

We settled on two determining factors:

1) Was the runner trying to injure the defensive player and,

2) Was the runner trying to dislodge the ball from the possession of the defensive player.

The only thing the NFHS edited was the were worried "what if" the defensive player instagited the contact.

In the "what if" giving one player tackling another does not neccessarily mean there is MC . . . but it does mean an unsportsmanlike activity did occur and you eject for that.

MC is simple if you keep it simple.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 20, 2014, 08:48am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
1) Was the runner trying to injure the defensive player and,
2) Was the runner trying to dislodge the ball from the possession of the defensive player.

In the "what if" giving one player tackling another does not neccessarily mean there is MC . . . but it does mean an unsportsmanlike activity did occur and you eject for that.
What other possible reasons could a runner have for "form-tackling" a defensive player to the ground?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 20, 2014, 11:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
Some of you probably remember that I was one of the two authors of the original Malicious Contact Rules for the National Federation.

When we were asked to develop the rule we were told by the NFSH: "try to keep it simple and eliminate judgment as much as possible."

We settled on two determining factors:

1) Was the runner trying to injure the defensive player and,

2) Was the runner trying to dislodge the ball from the possession of the defensive player.

The only thing the NFHS edited was the were worried "what if" the defensive player instagited the contact.

In the "what if" giving one player tackling another does not neccessarily mean there is MC . . . but it does mean an unsportsmanlike activity did occur and you eject for that.

MC is simple if you keep it simple.
Thank you Tim. Once again, you gave us the most important part of the MC rule.... Keep It Simple.

You've been saying this for years - it's a shame that so many umpires become totally flabbergasted when it comes to MC.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 20, 2014, 04:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
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."
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
Point of emphasis Rita C Basketball 31 Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:28am
Point Of Emphasis Mark Padgett Basketball 18 Thu Aug 26, 2010 09:30am
point of emphasis traveling fullor30 Basketball 21 Sat Dec 05, 2009 09:02am
Point of Emphasis at Work SMEngmann Basketball 12 Thu Dec 02, 2004 02:26pm
Federation points of emphasis FHSUref Football 1 Sun Aug 15, 2004 08:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1