Media Idiots

umpduck11

In our local fishwrapper Saturday edition, there was an interesting photograph from the 4A State High School Championship series. It showed a player with his forearm about head-level to the opposing catcher, as he was crossing the plate. The caption read that the runner was ejected by the plate umpire for "runner interference". In the accompanying article, they also
were kind enough to mention the plate umpire by name.... how nice of them. 🙄

ozzy6900

umpduck11 wrote
In our local fishwrapper Saturday edition, there was an interesting photograph from the 4A State High School Championship series. It showed a player with his forearm about head-level to the opposing catcher, as he was crossing the plate. The caption read that the runner was ejected by the plate umpire for "runner interference". In the accompanying article, they also
were kind enough to mention the plate umpire by name.... how nice of them. :rolleyes:

And your point is........................................?

SanDiegoSteve

Perhaps (just speculating) the point is that the runner was actually ejected for Malicious Contact, as there was no interference, and Duck is just pointing out how writers usually are ignorant of the rules. Also naming the umpire implying that it was a bad call may have something to do with it, too.

bob jenkins

SanDiegoSteve wrote
Perhaps (just speculating) the point is that the runner was actually ejected for Malicious Contact, as there was no interference,

MC is interference.

Otherwise, I agree.

SanDiegoSteve

bob jenkins wrote
MC is interference.

Not always. What if there were no play on the runner, like the ball was cut off and relayed to 2nd base, and the runner crashed the catcher? How would that be interference?

LDUB

SanDiegoSteve wrote
Not always. What if there were no play on the runner, like the ball was cut off and relayed to 2nd base, and the runner crashed the catcher? How would that be interference?

Malicious contact is a type of interference.

SanDiegoSteve

LDUB wrote
Malicious contact is a type of interference.

Oh, another FEDspeak thing. I get it.

umpduck11

I wasn't very clear in my OP, as the runner did give the catcher a forearm shiver. There was no "true" interference, as no play was being made on runner by the catcher, and he didn't have possession of the ball.
To be honest, I never considered MC as interference, just as a safety/sportsmanship issue.

tribefan1952

Malicious contact is malicious contact. Interference is interference. Sometimes they happen simultaneously, but not always. This sounds like malicious contact to me, but i wasn't there.