Federation point of emphasis - Malicious contact

[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?

[bob jenkins]

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?

No. It's (essentially) what I've always used.

[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.

[Tim C]

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.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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.

[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."