Malicious contact

BlueDevilRef

Well, blows up the catcher can be taken a lot of ways. Please try to describe plays in rule based description.

Since your thread title is malicious contact, I assume your judgement was that it was malicious. If so, that supersedes the obstruction (catcher did not have the ball (nfhs)). Dead ball, runner out and ejected.

RKBUmp

What rule set? Different rule sets are going to have different final rulings? Did runner have time to avoid contact or did catcher move in front of runner to late for the runner to avoid?

youngump

northbendon wrote
Runner coming home catcher sets up to receive ball one hop off the back of runner.runner then blows up the catcher. what's the call

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since she blew up the catcher, I'll assume you're playing under YSIL rules. In YSIL rules, blowing up the catcher is legal. The out would stand though if the catcher was able to apply the tag first even if possession was lost due to the explosion.

Umpire@1

youngump wrote
Since she blew up the catcher, I'll assume you're playing under YSIL rules. In YSIL rules, blowing up the catcher is legal. The out would stand though if the catcher was able to apply the tag first even if possession was lost due to the explosion.

Please tell me what are YSIL rules

Rich Ives

Umpire@1 wrote
Please tell me what are YSIL rules

Spoof. As in what if the catcher was actually blown up.

BlueDevilRef

In both NFHS and USSSA, it's an out and ejection, if deemed malicious contact. What rule sets differ from that ruling?

Andy

Umpire@1 wrote
Please tell me what are YSIL rules

For those of us that have been around the forum for awhile, we know what YSIL rules refer to......

There was a time in the past where we had many umpires that did their primary work under different sanctions....ASA, USSSA, NSA, NCAA, USFA, etc., etc.

One of our members (I can't remember who) came up with YSIL rules as a spoof.....YSIL is the acronym for Yemeni Slayer of the Infidel League....

Now do you understand the "blowing up" the catcher reference? 😀

RKBUmp

BlueDevilRef wrote
In both NFHS and USSSA, it's an out and ejection, if deemed malicious contact. What rule sets differ from that ruling?

While ASA does not use the term malicious contact in the rule book, people sometimes use it universally to describe contact.

ASA does not have an out call for flagrant/excessive or malicious contact. If the runner scored or was obstructed in reaching home, the run would score and then they would be ejected.

Tru_in_Blu

RKBUmp wrote
While ASA does not use the term malicious contact in the rule book, people sometimes use it universally to describe contact.

ASA does not have an out call for flagrant/excessive or malicious contact. If the runner scored or was obstructed in reaching home, the run would score and then they would be ejected.

Suggest you re-read RS 13.

RKBUmp

Tru_in_Blu wrote
Suggest you re-read RS 13.

Rule supplement 13 is specific to a fielder who is in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag. It has nothing to do with a fielder not in possession of the ball.

jmkupka

I've had more than one discussion with old-school umps regarding a runner plowing over F2 (not in possession) on her way to the plate.

They insist there's no way they're going to allow the run to score.

Nothing in ASA allows me to call her out, or to disallow the run. EJ of course, but not an out.

BlueDevilRef

I find it very poor of ASA to not have this rule. Very silly.

CecilOne

RKBUmp wrote
While ASA does not use the term malicious contact in the rule book, people sometimes use it universally to describe contact.

ASA does not have an out call for flagrant/excessive or malicious contact. If the runner scored or was obstructed in reaching home, the run would score and then they would be ejected.

The nearest is 8.7.Q

RKBUmp

CecilOne wrote
The nearest is 8.7.Q

Which is rule supplement 13 and only applies to a fielder in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag.

Tru_in_Blu

RKBUmp wrote
ASA does not have an out call for flagrant/excessive or malicious contact.

Your words. You didn't specify by situation.

ASA does have an out call for flagrant contact.

CecilOne

RKBUmp wrote
Which is rule supplement 13 and only applies to a fielder in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag.

That is why I said "nearest".

CecilOne

Tru_in_Blu wrote
Your words. You didn't specify by situation.

ASA does have an out call for flagrant contact.

Which rule do you mean?

Tru_in_Blu

cecilone wrote
which rule do you mean?

rs 13

teebob21

Tru_in_Blu wrote
rs 13

This particular play has been the source of most of my dead-ball outs and a bunch of missed youth ejections over my umpiring career. Most of that has been ASA ball. Today I learned there is no interference rule against a runner "interfering" with a fielder who does not have the ball. I have probably called this out 20 times with no one ever protesting (except when I ejected a 12 y.o. kid).

Instead of the catcher, let's imagine this play at 3B. A runner from 2B intends to score on a base hit to LF. When rounding 3B, the runner intentionally runs over and through F5 who is waiting for the cutoff throw. There is no ASA rule support for an out or a dead ball.

If the fielder has the ball when the crash is initiated by the runner, we have the RS #13 and 8-7-Q rule support. Otherwise, a strict interpretation of the rules would lead me to believe we play on, and eject at the conclusion of play.

BlueDevilRef

I think that rule then and pardon my French is bullshit. On what grounds can you eject if you don't have enough to have an out and a dead ball? The two should be inclusive to each other