Obstruction / Malicious Contact

[alabamabluezebra]

Due to Dixie's vague rules on conduct and sportsmanship, it would be hard to justify an immediate ejection. Ejection is mentioned twice in the rulebook - under definitions and under rule XII. According to rule XII, only throwing equipment and profanity warrants an automatic ejection. Any other unsportsmanlike conduct requires (1) warning before the player is ejected. A flagrant act requires the player to leave the premises after an ejection. Based on Dixie rules, a protest may cause your ruling to be overturned if the ruling body foregoes common sense. Rule XII B empowers the umpire to call the runner OUT in this situation.

[Edited by alabamabluezebra on May 5th, 2004 at 03:39 PM]

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by alabamabluezebra
Due to Dixie's vague rules...

That alone says a mouthful!!!

[mcrowder]

I think perhaps the only thing I did wrong was not make the girl leave the premesis. Again, I was not watching the ball... I was watching the runner / pitcher. She had ample opportunity to avoid, and I believe she collided intentionally because she was ticked off that the pitcher was in her way.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Age 13 - 15 REC ball. I don't see this at intentional at all.

No one said it was, nor does the rule require it to be.

I see young and/or inexperienced players focusing on getting home, not sure whether to slide or not; see's no play so stays upright. Probably didn't even "see" the pitcher.

I see a player which needs to learn how to play the game. If you continue to make excuses for them, they will never learn

For us, as adults, to look into the mind of a teenage girl and say "Oh, you did that deliberately," or "You had plenty of time to avoid the collision" and eject them from the game is wrong, IMO. I've spent too many years coaching this age group, in both REC ball and H.S. JV teams and I know how these girls do, and do not, react to game situations. Varsity ball, or 16U TB, definately make the call.

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with what the umpire and opponents experience. If something happens, there must be repercussions. Doesn't have to be intentional. People have car accidents all the time and most of them are not intentional, but the individual at fault is still held responsible, supposedly regardless of their age.

However, note that NFHS does support the obstructed runner making some contact with the fielder. Casebook 8.4.3.SIT D: F2, without the ball and with no chance to catch the ball, is blocking home plate. R1 pushes F2, but not flagrantly, out of the base path and touches home plate. RULING: Obstuction."

WMB

And that is fine, for Fed. This was Dixie and an ASA ruling was invited. I simply noted what should happen in ASA. An umpire enforces rules, not opinions. Don't see any other way to handle this than in the manner prescribed.

[CecilOne]

As I get this, the out for UC is just "speaking ASA".

I do agree with the ejection if it appeared to be malicious or flagrant contact, obstruction otherwise. However, I would not banish a youth player from the field unless accompanied by a coach or parent, even though only NFHS forbids it.

The following are worth repeating:

"It does not make a defender without the ball fair game. Dumb move on behalf of the defender, yes; right to be used as a tackling dummy, no. All players have an obligation to avoid a collision, if possible.

There is no rule forbidding a defender from being in the runner's path. The rule forbids impeding the progress of a runner without the ball."

"Intentionally running into someone is never, never, never acceptable. I don't understand why some of us are not understanding this SIMPLE safety rule.

You must be watching too many collisions on TV baseball games. Intentional collisions are not allowed."

[John Dechene]

I am glad to see our ASA umpires accept the new obstrution rule. It is finally a fair situation for the smaller runner against the giant bully catchers! I do have a question though? Can a 3B hover on top of the base to recieve a throw down from the catcher... This forces the runneers to come back low(and dirty) or slow and blocked out. Whats your outlook on the matter?

Thanks.....JD

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not according to Mr. Pollard. Even though his vision finished 17th in the Derby, I have to assume his mind is just fine

There is a case book play (Section 10, not sure of play number).

I intend to submit a rule change in November specifically addressing this issue.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on May 5th, 2004 at 04:48 PM]

Mike,
the only ruling for flagrant misconduct I could find
in Section 10 was,

Play 10.8.1 - R1 on 3b, B2 hits a fly ball to F7. Thinking the ball will
be caught, B2 throws his bat in anger. The ball bounds off F7 and clears the
fence. Umpire rules dead ball. Calls B2 out nullifying his run and ejects B2.
R1 is returned to 3B.
Ruling: Correct ruling for flagrant misconduct (10-8A, 10-1J(3); 10-1K)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump

Mike,
the only ruling for flagrant misconduct I could find
in Section 10 was,

Play 10.8.1 - R1 on 3b, B2 hits a fly ball to F7. Thinking the ball will
be caught, B2 throws his bat in anger. The ball bounds off F7 and clears the
fence. Umpire rules dead ball. Calls B2 out nullifying his run and ejects B2.
R1 is returned to 3B.
Ruling: Correct ruling for flagrant misconduct (10-8A, 10-1J(3); 10-1K)

Okay, but I'm missing your point.

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Age 13 - 15 REC ball. I don't see this at intentional at all. I see young and/or inexperienced players focusing on getting home, not sure whether to slide or not; see's no play so stays upright. Probably didn't even "see" the pitcher.

For us, as adults, to look into the mind of a teenage girl and say "Oh, you did that deliberately," or "You had plenty of time to avoid the collision" and eject them from the game is wrong, IMO. I've spent too many years coaching this age group, in both REC ball and H.S. JV teams and I know how these girls do, and do not, react to game situations.

Varsity ball, or 16U TB, definately make the call. However, note that NFHS does support the obstructed runner making some contact with the fielder. Casebook 8.4.3.SIT D: F2, without the ball and with no chance to catch the ball, is blocking home plate. R1 pushes F2, but not flagrantly, out of the base path and touches home plate. RULING: Obstuction."

WMB

I think at 15U - with a HTBT play and as described my the poster - an ejection is definately a viable option under ASA and seems to be the correct call. I also coach and ump these age groups; and I agree with you in general that most of the younger aged girls would be more prone to error than intentional/malicious contact; interference with ejection is most definately still not "off the table" for any age group - if the runner came down the line and creamed that pitcher without making any attempt to avoid - I would definately call that runner out - ejection is a real possibility. I do not agree with turning this into an obstruction based on age group... especially that particular senior age group prior to HS Ball. There is no age group where malicious contact could never occur.

[WestMichBlue]

"I called her out and ejected for malicious contact. She didn't lower her shoulder, but from what I saw she had time to avoid."

Why is everybody so anxious to eject these kids from a ball game. Depending on the organization, that can be one hell of a penalty. We recently had a girl lose most of four games because of an ill-advised ejection. (She lost that game and the rest of the day - 2nd game of DH, and the next day of play - also a DH.)

The ASA (and NFHS) rule is very clear; runner stays on her feet and crashes into defender, runner is out for interference. Period! OUT.

Now if the contact is Flagrant (ASA) or Malicious (NFHS) then you have a new ruling, separate from the interference call. Now the penalty is ejection (USC).

But what is Flagrant? ASA does not define it. Mcrowder has decided that flagrant means that, in his opinion, the runner had time to avoid the contact. So what? If the runner had time to avoid, and did so, we would not have an interference call. But she didn't. So we call INT and call her out. But flagrant? Webster defines flagrant as:

"so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality" or " conspicuously bad or objectionable. FLAGRANT applies usually to offenses or errors so bad that they can neither escape notice nor be condoned"

This sounds pretty serious. It fits in with the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact as "an act involving excessive force with an opponent."

To find for Flagrant or Malicious Contact, I need to see a deliberate action that indicates contact with the opponent without regard for that opponent's welfare or safety. If a player deliberately wants to hit someone, they will protect themselves first. They will lower a shoulder, tuck in the head, or hold the arms out as a battering ram. If a girl is not protecting herself, that action is probably accidental contact. Accidental contact can be cause for interference, but no matter how severe, it should never be grounds for ejection.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"I called her out and ejected for malicious contact. She didn't lower her shoulder, but from what I saw she had time to avoid."

Why is everybody so anxious to eject these kids from a ball game. Depending on the organization, that can be one hell of a penalty. We recently had a girl lose most of four games because of an ill-advised ejection. (She lost that game and the rest of the day - 2nd game of DH, and the next day of play - also a DH.)

The ASA (and NFHS) rule is very clear; runner stays on her feet and crashes into defender, runner is out for interference. Period! OUT.

Now if the contact is Flagrant (ASA) or Malicious (NFHS) then you have a new ruling, separate from the interference call. Now the penalty is ejection (USC).

But what is Flagrant? ASA does not define it. Mcrowder has decided that flagrant means that, in his opinion, the runner had time to avoid the contact. So what? If the runner had time to avoid, and did so, we would not have an interference call. But she didn't. So we call INT and call her out. But flagrant? Webster defines flagrant as:

"so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality" or " conspicuously bad or objectionable. FLAGRANT applies usually to offenses or errors so bad that they can neither escape notice nor be condoned"

This sounds pretty serious. It fits in with the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact as "an act involving excessive force with an opponent."

To find for Flagrant or Malicious Contact, I need to see a deliberate action that indicates contact with the opponent without regard for that opponent's welfare or safety. If a player deliberately wants to hit someone, they will protect themselves first. They will lower a shoulder, tuck in the head, or hold the arms out as a battering ram. If a girl is not protecting herself, that action is probably accidental contact. Accidental contact can be cause for interference, but no matter how severe, it should never be grounds for ejection.

WMB

If a runner had time to attempt to avoid a collision..please note, I said ATTEMPT. Obviously, at certain points, not all things can be totally avoidable. However, if a runner has the time and ELECTS to not try to avoid a collision and does not slide, that is intent. Any player at any age who intentionally runs into another player MUST be made to understand that is not acceptable. In my judgment, this is also an act of unsportsmanlike conduct, and the penalty for that is to be ejected.

In ASA, the ONLY penalty for being ejected is removal from THAT game and that game only. Additional actions or the severity of the original act COULD cause a TD to impose additional sanctions, but that is beyond the situation about which we are speaking.

And please to not whine about the little girls not knowing any better. That is no reason to NOT make this sort of ruling. The umpire only has to come to this point AFTER the parents, coaches and teammates have failed. And remember, the player which could have been or was injured by this action of the same age group and just as susceptable to have her body and feelings hurt as much as the runner.

[mcrowder]

I didn't mean to mislead anyone, or redefine "Flagrant". But even though this girl didn't lower her shoulder, she definitely saw that the girl was in her way, and did not slow down when bowling over the catcher. I know this was a HTBT, but from 4 feet away (where I was), this was pretty flagrant.

I should add, for WMB's benefit, that I am very reluctant to toss a player - this was (so far) the only ejection of a player I've had this year, but I fully believe it was warranted.

[dtwsd]

Intentional collisions are absolutely unacceptable - they must be avoided. Independent of where the ball is, or if the defense has it or anything about the ball...

Collisions should be avoided as reasonable. PERIOD.

Intentionally running into someone is never, never, never acceptable. I don't understand why some of us are not understanding this SIMPLE safety rule.
[/B]

I had a game this past weeked (10U ASA league championship game). R1 on 2B, 1 out. On base hit to outfield 3B coach sent R1 home. At this time I look at HP and see the catcher standing directly on top of it. Very little of the plate was exposed. I give DDB signal in anticipation of obstruction. As the ball came back in from the outfield, it went to the pitcher and never came to the catcher so there was no play at the plate (no longer obstruction at that point). The runner however did not slide and made no attempt at all to avoid contact in order to touch the plate. She put her arms up to her chest so as to protect herself and she ran square into the catcher, knocking her down on her backside. I call DB and rule the runner out for crash interference. I did not eject her from the game because she did not push the catcher down and at that age she probably didn't know any better. If she would have made any attempt at all to avoid, I would have allowed the run and talked to the defensive coach about where to position his catcher. My UIC and the TD both agreed with my ruling.

There has to be a consequence for crashing into players who do not have the ball. If there wasn't, it would happen all the time. Sometimes by our rulings we as umpires teach the young ones more about the game than some coaches. One thing is for sure. I'll bet from now on that catcher won't stand on top of the plate with out the ball and that runner won't knock a player over any more. (maybe)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by dtwsd
The runner however did not slide and made no attempt at all to avoid contact in order to touch the plate. She put her arms up to her chest so as to protect herself and she ran square into the catcher, knocking her down on her backside. I call DB and rule the runner out for crash interference. I did not eject her from the game because she did not push the catcher down and at that age she probably didn't know any better. If she would have made any attempt at all to avoid, I would have allowed the run and talked to the defensive coach about where to position his catcher. My UIC and the TD both agreed with my ruling.

There has to be a consequence for crashing into players who do not have the ball. If there wasn't, it would happen all the time. Sometimes by our rulings we as umpires teach the young ones more about the game than some coaches. One thing is for sure. I'll bet from now on that catcher won't stand on top of the plate with out the ball and that runner won't knock a player over any more. (maybe)

ASA gives you more citations and references backing up the ejection than they do ruling the runner out in this case. BTW, how can the catcher get knocked down on her backside, but not be pushed down by the runner. What would you do if the catcher saw the runner coming and braced herself for the collision by turning a shoulder into her? You would probably call obstruction and dump the catcher, I know I would and have. So, what's the difference between the runner hitting the catcher and the catcher hitting the runner? My response would be none since it is quite obvious the "crash" was intentional.

Once again, the ejection is nothing more than sitting the remainder of that game. If the girl had time to cross her arms and brace herself, there is no doubt that this was not only a deliberate act, but probably COACHED. Sorry, I disagree with all you bleeding hearts If there is an intentional crash, the player should be ejected. And before everyone comes up with the "but what if they just bump them" or some other weak-sister comparisons, I mean crash, run into, knock down.

Whether you think the result isn't worth an ejection or not, remember it only takes one ill-conceived turn, one inaccurate physical reaction, one bad fall, etc. to ruin a young girls life. There is a reason for the rule and it has nothing to do with feeling good about oneself. They are meant to be a deterent to dangerous play and are useless if the umpires will not enforce them.

[dtwsd]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA


BTW, how can the catcher get knocked down on her backside, but not be pushed down by the runner.

Because she got bumped into not pushed.

What would you do if the catcher saw the runner coming and braced herself for the collision by turning a shoulder into her?

That's not what we're talking about here now is it?

If the girl had time to cross her arms and brace herself, there is no doubt that this was not only a deliberate act, but probably COACHED.

Now that's quite an assumption.

Sorry, I disagree with all you bleeding hearts If there is an intentional crash, the player should be ejected. .

Lighten up Francis this was a 10U game. At that age most girls have no idea what an intentional crash is. Besides, she spent the next two innings crying because she was called out at the plate. Why humiliate a 9 or 10 year old by ejecting them?