Obstruction / Malicious Contact

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by dtwsd
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA




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?

Yes, actually it is. The discussion is about the application of the rule for an act of USC. It applies in both directions.

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.

Not as far fetched as you would like to believe. It is not unusual to hear a coach tell players to:

Next time, run right through her.
Next time, plant the throw between her eyes.
Next time, if she doesn't move, move her.

It also isn't unusual for a coach or player, and sometimes a parent, be stupid enough to say that out loud as if an attempt to intimidate the other team or umpire.

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?

When umpires lighten up, they are not doing their job. I really don't care what the age of the players is and that the runner was called out. ASA states if you do that, ejection must be included as it is a package deal. BTW, I guess the other player (catcher) is a non-entity in this play. Would you be so cavalier if she had been injured? And yes, it does matter because that is the PURPOSE of the rules.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on May 20th, 2004 at 08:32 PM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by dtwsd
Because she got bumped into not pushed.

A distinction without a difference. As described, she did not "bump" into her, she braced herself to protect herself, and crashed into the defender.

Now that's quite an assumption.

Are you new? Meaning no disrespect, but if you view 10U coaches being incapable of coaching this kind of behavior, I suspect you haven't gotten out much.

Why humiliate a 9 or 10 year old by ejecting them?

So you would rather endanger the other 9 or 10 yo player? Perhaps the runner's actions were as innocent as you believe them to be. Nonetheless, you are doing the game no favor if you allow this kind of baserunning to slide by without proper rules enforcement. The coaches and the players need to learn that, whether or not the defender had the ball (i.e. irrelevant to the interference call), intentional crashing into a defender is USC, and will result in ejection. It is a safety rule. It needs to be enforced, not ignored because the umpire is afraid of hurting the player's feelings.

[dtwsd]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

Perhaps the runner's actions were as innocent as you believe them to be. Nonetheless, you are doing the game no favor if you allow this kind of baserunning to slide by without proper rules enforcement. The coaches and the players need to learn that, whether or not the defender had the ball (i.e. irrelevant to the interference call), intentional crashing into a defender is USC, and will result in ejection. It is a safety rule. It needs to be enforced, not ignored because the umpire is afraid of hurting the player's feelings.

Tom & Mike,
Perhaps you're right. I wasn't trying to start a debate over whether or not an ejection was warranted. Maybe is was. I absolutely agree that crashing into a defender (with or without the ball) is a safety issue. I explained that to the coach when I ruled the runner out. On this play (in my judgement) I felt that there was no malicious intent on the part of this 9 or 10 year old runner. That is why I didn't eject her. Now had this been an older kid I probably would have ejected her. I just think that we don't have to be quick on the draw to sit a player down unless we determine it necessary based on the situation. Like most plays described on this board this is probably a HTBT situation. If you would have seen the play, maybe you would agree with my ruling.