Malicious contact
 

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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? :D

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Your words. You didn't specify by situation.

ASA does have an out call for flagrant contact.

That is why I said "nearest".

Which rule do you mean?

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.

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

Rule 1: Ejected Participant - A team representative removed from the game by the umpire, usually for an unsportsmanlike act or conduct.

Trucking a player without the ball just because there is no other penalty in the ASA rules = unsportsmanlike conduct. Now, I don't disagree with you that perhaps there should be an additional penalty for a bush league move like this, but unless someone gives a rule cite, there simply isn't one.

Ever hear of unsportsmanlike conduct?


They used to have an out in the old regime when MB & HP justified the call with a long stretch of rule interpretations.

In 2009, I proposed a change which removed the words "has the ball" which would result in an INT ruling including an out for the runner who creates flagrant contact with a possible subsequent ejection.

Of course I have heard of unsportsmanlike conduct......which is how you eject in any rule set. Maybe ASA should stop worrying about chin straps and silly things like that and get this rule right. Around here, it's fallen by the wayside anyway so it's nothing to me but I'd be bothered with an ejection but no out in this type of play.

In NFHS, if the initiator of the malicious contact is the offensive player, the play is dead immediately and the offender is declared out (if not already having been put out).

While ASA doesn't seem to have an out unless the defender has the ball and awaiting to tag the runner, is there anything that says the play would be dead immediately as in NFHS?

If I'm.not mistaken asa no longer requires chin straps.

I'll admit I don't know bc I don't do it anymore. But last time I did, chin straps was all anyone was concerned about. I found it very silly.

I agree 100%. Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Use some common sense. You see a player with or without the ball and they get intentionaly taken by a offensive player just to be taking her out. And she should be called out and ejected. RS 13 or what ever you want to say. But I am ejecting and calling out.

If you are working an asa game and the fielder does not have the ball you have no rule basis to call an out.

It's a rule of equity. Simple as that.

Huh? Oh, a legal term. :p :)

Getting back to useful questions.

1) Is the ejection immediate? IOW, no further action by that player counts?

2) What is the difference between malicious and flagrant? NFHS defines malicious as "excesive force". ASA does not define either.
Malicious in a dictionary means "having or showing a desire to cause harm to another person".

If this is a hijack, tell me and I'll repost separately.

In nfhs and utrip, yes, player is out and ejection is immediate, so player could not score. (I don't have rules cute though bc my books are in the car)

I don't know that there really is a difference in flagrant or malicious. I would use them interchangeably.

And I don't think it's a hijack. Pretty germane to the conversation.

ASA, runner bowls over clueless F2 then touches the plate, run scores.

BR blows up F3 when rounding 1B, continues around the bases and crosses the plate. Run scores.

Then ejection.

I imagine this play somewhat resembles this: http://i.giphy.com/TIKf43cN5FTYQ.gif All sorts of bad stuff, with ejections at the end.

Can I continue this train of thought with a game management question? Would it be appropriate to bring both head coaches together and explain that the ejections will continue until morale sportsmanship improves? I might also warn the offensive HC that should his team pull another stunt like that, he'll be following his players to the parking lot. Not that he would need the warning, but for the benefit of the defensive coach seeing that we are being proactive about an obvious unsportsmanlike play.

Or does bringing the coaches together for a private, stern chat run the risk of escalating the situation by getting them within arm's length of one another?

Personally, I wouldn't bring the two together, but rather address each at their respective dugouts.

Most likely, I'll be addressing the OC at the HP area, where I'd probably be while announcing the ejection when she crosses the plate. Any warning of a coach ejection would come right after he attempts to justify his girl's behavior.

Any blanket warning to both teams (again, individually), would be in the vein of diffusing the situation, explaining my decision, and advising them both against any future USC.

But bringing two irate coaches together is a bad idea...

In the video, the landing was allowed continue, and then the ejection.:D

Hey, you asked the question. :)

IMO, the chin strap rule was and should still be, something that was important for safety reasons and made an umpire's life much easier by eliminating the ACCIDENTAL removal or the falling off of the helmet.

Not necessarily. If you only need to say something once, there should be no confusion and accusations that the umpire didn't say one thing or another. It is only a bad idea if the umpire is incapable of controlling the meeting.

12th year of both NFHS and Utrip, neither of which require chin strap, and I really don't remember a helmet coming off ever. Maybe I am forgetting it but I don't recall any.

Mike, I guess a good barometer of that would be, if the 2 coaches were already going at it from across the diamond, I wouldn't facilitate things by closing the distance (even as a moderator).