How would you handle this

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

... The runner does not attempt to slide and simply runs to 3rd base without regard for F5 who she runs over. In the process of the collision the glove is knocked off F5's hand and hits the ground rolling free. Both players end up in a heap on the ground at 3rd base.


Here is what we did and the totality of the situation that followed.

The B/U calls the runner out for interference. He does not rule malicious contact on the play.

Do you have FED rule support for this?

Running someone over is MC, which is a form of interference with the added penalty. Seems to me, this is where things starting breaking down.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Do you have FED rule support for this?

Running someone over is MC, which is a form of interference with the added penalty. Seems to me, this is where things starting breaking down.

First thing, your interpretation does not agree with the interpretation we have been given (not that I completely agree) The justification is rule 8-6-13. The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her.

The key part of the rule is does not legally slide (as opposed to illegally slides). By wording this rule in this way, it allows the runner not to slide. By adding the and causes illegal contact to the rule it allows a runner to not slide, but puts the onus on said runner not to illegally contact the runner.

(Part of the issue is our association has a couple lawyers who analyze everything from a legal standpoint).

Now, as for my taking action in the first place. I told the coach to return to the coaches box AFTER my partner attempted to walk away from the play. At that point he has attempted to distance himself from the play and I was within my rights to ask her to return to her designated area. When she kept on him, that is when he attempted to restrict her, which she wasn't going to accept.


As for the coach wanting him to come to me. She is lucky that he didn't come to me for assistance because I would have not only said we have an out, but I personally would have been going against the interpretation we were given, and I would have ruled MC and ejected. I was not going to do that on a call where my partner was the primary calling umpire and had a clear view, then did not ask for assistance.

(Per a previous discussion that would not go well, because I was a B/U and would have ejected on a collision at the plate, and was clearly told not to do that on this board).


Blue Devil, the only difference between here and there is that Michigan does not carry over the penalty from year to year. An ejected coach or player is barred from the next day of competition (so both games of a DH in this case).

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

First thing, your interpretation does not agree with the interpretation we have been given (not that I completely agree) The justification is rule 8-6-13. The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her.

The key part of the rule is does not legally slide (as opposed to illegally slides). By wording this rule in this way, it allows the runner not to slide. By adding the and causes illegal contact to the rule it allows a runner to not slide, but puts the onus on said runner not to illegally contact the runner.

(Part of the issue is our association has a couple lawyers who analyze everything from a legal standpoint).

If this is how your association is interpreting, then they are off base (pardon the pun). As you 8-6-13 the runner is "never required to slide."

The illegal contact is part of an illegal slide, period. For an illegal slide, there must be a slide (and defined in 2-52-2). In your case, there was no slide, therefore it cannot be an illegal slide (and illegal contact), therefore cannot fall under 8-6-13. I can see this, and my only law training is multiple reruns of Law and Order. And this is in light being . . .

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.

But is it automatically malicious?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

But is it automatically malicious?

No, but NFHS rules either has MC with out and ejection or nothing, no provision for a "crash" out (ASA provides for a crash with an out and no ejection).

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

If this is how your association is interpreting, then they are off base (pardon the pun). As you 8-6-13 the runner is "never required to slide."

The illegal contact is part of an illegal slide, period. For an illegal slide, there must be a slide (and defined in 2-52-2). In your case, there was no slide, therefore it cannot be an illegal slide (and illegal contact), therefore cannot fall under 8-6-13. I can see this, and my only law training is multiple reruns of Law and Order. And this is in light being . . .

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.

8-6-14 is a judgment on the umpires part. Per the definition of malicious contact in rule 2-35 the umpire must judge what is excessive force with an opponent. Personally I would have called it malicious, but that was not my call as I was not the covering umpire.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

8-6-14 is a judgment on the umpires part. Per the definition of malicious contact in rule 2-35 the umpire must judge what is excessive force with an opponent. Personally I would have called it malicious, but that was not my call as I was not the covering umpire.

See my response to Cecil. NFHS rules do not provide a "crash" out and no ejection. Either you have an out and ejection under 8-6-14 or nothing. And that was the point of my first post to you: what rule gives the bases for your partner's ruling? And 8-6-13 is not the answer.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

See my response to Cecil. NFHS rules do not provide a "crash" out and no ejection. Either you have an out and ejection under 8-6-14 or nothing. And that was the point of my first post to you: what rule gives the bases for your partner's ruling? And 8-6-13 is not the answer.

You guys really need to pay attention to the wording of the rules, including the comma's, (As does the NFHS). As I have previously stated, the wording of the rule, as stated by several umpire/attorney's does in fact allow for such a ruling based on the way 8-6-13 is written. Is it the way 8-6-13 is intended to be applied? Maybe, maybe not, but given the way NFHS rules are worded, I think their writing is sloppy, which allows for this legalized interpretation for plays like this.

As I have also stated, if he had come to me for assistance, we would have had a MC contact ejection as well as the coach who I'm sure would have still earned her trip to the parking lot.