Obstruction, crash interference, malicous contact

[Dakota]

One of our esteemed members posted this on eteamz. I am quoting WMB here because this is a better forum for an umpire-to-umpire discussion on this topic.

This year NFHS Rule 8.6.14 simply reads, "She remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player." Penalty is called out and ejected. This rule now is strickly limited to malicious contact.

For any other contact we now fall back on 8.6.13 which is the "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact" rule. The penalty is called out.

The revised articles 13 and 14 do read better now. I suspect that too many players were getting ejected after collisions, that the Committee wanted to definitely separate malicious contact from illegal contact.

Situation: F2 is blocking home without possession of the ball, standing up the baseline toward 3rd a couple of steps. R1 is attempting to score on what R1 believes may be a close play based on the antics of 3B coach as she was rounding 3rd. F2 is too far up the line for R1 to slide and still reach home. There is contact between R1 and F2 (F2 still does not have the ball).

I've left the nature of the contact unstated, but that is the crux of the discussion I would like to have, so add to the scenario to explain, should you choose to engage this discussion.

Question: Where is the boundary between obstruction (and batter awarded home), crash interference (and batter ruled out), and malicious contact (and batter ruled out and ejected)?

NFHS or ASA... primarily NFHS, since the quote above suggests NFHS may believe too many are being ejected. In my experience, I think the issue is in the opposite direction - a reluctance to eject.

[wadeintothem]

For an ejection it really is I know it when I see it.. but I would say .. lowering the shoulder or bowling of the catcher in a football type manner and I would eject. Some contend that Home is seen as a free fire zone by umps etc, but I dont see it that way at all.

Rules favor the runner in a OBS scenario - they should be taught that, not to destroy the catcher.

[WestMichBlue]

Malicious contact, IMO, is intentional and violent. The NFHS words are Excessive Force. If a runner stays on her feet, and has, in my judgment, plenty of time to avoid the defender, but makes no effort to minimize the contact, then I will call malicious contact.

I will give the runner the benefit of doubt that she may not recognize the collision situation and, if at the last possible instant she attempts to avoid or minimize the contact, then I will fall back on the illegal contact rule and call her out for interference (but not malicious, and thus no ejection).

However – the defender must be in the immediate act of making a play on the runner. The ball must have left another defender’s hand and must be on the way to the catcher, or at her, or past her. If that is not true, then I cannot call interference.

The above assumes that the defender is stationary and has not suddenly moved into the path of the runner, thus making the avoidance of contact difficult.

I’ve always felt the NFHS tends to favor the runner, and Mary Struckhoff’s obstruction interpretations last year support that. For years the NFHS casebook had a play (8.4.3[D]) where a runner can push aside an obstructing defender (if not malicious) and not be penalized.

I wish that all umpires would call all obstruction in all games. Then players will learn to trust the umpires and they will attempt to avoid all contact with an obstructing defender, knowing they will get the call. Once they are trained, our job becomes easier.

WMB

[argodad]

Originally posted by wadeintothem
For an ejection it really is I know it when I see it.. but I would say .. lowering the shoulder or bowling of the catcher in a football type manner and I would eject. Some contend that Home is seen as a free fire zone by umps etc, but I dont see it that way at all.

Rules favor the runner in a OBS scenario - they should be taught that, not to destroy the catcher.

I had my first player ejection (ever) last week. It truly was "I know it when I see it." Runner lowered her shoulder and crashed into the catcher. I gave an overhand out call, and before my right foot hit the ground I added, "and that player is ejected!" She ejected herself -- I just did the paperwork.

[mcrowder]

I can't see this being interference in ANY scenario. Either the contact is malicious, and she's out and ejected, or the contact is incidental, and the fault of the fielder - OBS, award home. ANY non-malicious contact here, whether the ball is coming or not, is OBS, not INT. You can't call her out for INT for not sliding, as may have been intimated above.

As to the line I draw, I believe "I know it when I see it" is appropriate, but generally I'm looking for intent from the runner. "Avoidable" contact is not necessarily malicious.

[Dakota]

There are sure signs of malicous contact - lowering the shoulder, throwing an elbow, etc.

It is the gray areas that I wanted to talk about. Of course, discussing this in print has limitations...

I agree that merely being avoidable is not necessarily malicious, but it will be one of the things I will be looking for.

Assume the fielder was relatively static in place and stayed there while the runner rounded 3rd and headed home, and assume the fielder's position would definitely require the runner to deviate from her path to the base.

If the runner has the entire 50+ feet to decide to deviate and does not, that is certainly a strong indicator of intent to collide in my view.

Another factor would be the violence of the collision. If the runner could have aovided, but does not, and plows full speed into the fielder, that will likely be judged as malicous by me whether or not the shoulder was lowered.

OTOH, there can also be malicous contact that is not particularly violent, but here I would be looking for such things as lowered shoulder, thrown elbow, etc.

[wadeintothem]

What about team attitude..

If you know (or observe) the team and the coaches and you know or can tell the coach teaches certain techniques and overall team behavior is gray area "dirty" (although mostly not illegal.. but always walking that line) .. do you factor that in your decision?

Make an example of one perhaps...

[Dakota]

Originally posted by wadeintothem
What about team attitude..

If you know (or observe) the team and the coaches and you know or can tell the coach teaches certain techniques and overall team behavior is gray area "dirty" (although mostly not illegal.. but always walking that line) .. do you factor that in your decision?

Make an example of one perhaps...

If the attitude seemed to be moving toward a game out of control, I'd most likely warn first (assuming they did stay just on the legal side), and then eject if things escalate at all.

[WestMichBlue]

mcrowder: You can't call her out for INT for not sliding, as may have been intimated above.

I didn't say that, and you apparently are not paying attention.

For years NFHS has had a rule that a runner does not have to slide, but if they do slide it must be a legal slide; that if the runner doesn't slide and causes illegal contact (or simply alters the action of the defender) while the defender is in the immediate act of making a play on the runner, the runner is called out. (Dead ball, other runners return; B-R placed at 1B.) Yes, that is called interference!

Using this, and the new 8.6.14, Dakota asked us to draw a line between malicious contact (ejection), crash interference (out), and obstruction (award home). You have arbitrarily decided there is only A or B - all contact is either ejection or obstruction.

Lets modify Dakota's play. Assume that at the last second that R1 realizes that F2 is not going to get out of the way so she attempts to go around, but her knee hits F2's knee, taking F2 down with the ball being uncaught.

Malicious contact, ejection?
Obstruction, award home?
Illegal contact, interference over-rides obstruction, call R1 out?

I think this is a tough call, but I also think that a runner must have some responsibility to avoid contact with a defender in the act of making a play. I believe the runner must deviate and avoid contact if possible and assume that the umpire will call obstruction.

I don't know what the NFHS expects this year. They made the change without editorial comment. I have verified that the change was intentional, but have not, as of this date, received an answer as to why.

Assuming that the defender is relatively stationary, then:

if you believe the runner has a responsibility to avoid contact, and

that contact other than by a legal slide is illegal contact, and

that illegal contact is interference, then

I believe that the combination of 8.6.13 and 8.6.14, along with penalties, reads better this year.

WMB

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
mcrowder: You can't call her out for INT for not sliding, as may have been intimated above.

I didn't say that, and you apparently are not paying attention.

I was trying to be careful there, as I was not sure if that was what you were trying to imply (hence my words "may have" and "intimated"). I was paying attention, but was not sure if your comments were meant to lean that way.

... if the runner doesn't slide and causes illegal contact (or simply alters the action of the defender) while the defender is in the immediate act of making a play on the runner, the runner is called out. (Dead ball, other runners return; B-R placed at 1B.) Yes, that is called interference!

I agree. When I made my first post, though, I didn't read this as the situation.

Using this, and the new 8.6.14, Dakota asked us to draw a line between malicious contact (ejection), crash interference (out), and obstruction (award home). You have arbitrarily decided there is only A or B - all contact is either ejection or obstruction.

I didn't mean to limit the choices to A or B for EVERY play... just for this one. Perhaps it was a faulty assumption on my part, but I did not see an "immediate play" being made so that interference could be an option. As I read this, I inferred that the ball was not about to be there, and that F2 was simply far enough up the line that sliding was not an option, but not making an immediate play. To my mind, either the contact was intentional/maliciouson the runner's part, or the contact was obstruction.

Add an immediately incoming ball to the situation and I agree that interference is a possibility.

Lets modify Dakota's play. Assume that at the last second that R1 realizes that F2 is not going to get out of the way so she attempts to go around, but her knee hits F2's knee, taking F2 down with the ball being uncaught.

Malicious contact, ejection?
Obstruction, award home?
Illegal contact, interference over-rides obstruction, call R1 out?

I think this is a tough call, but I also think that a runner must have some responsibility to avoid contact with a defender in the act of making a play. I believe the runner must deviate and avoid contact if possible and assume that the umpire will call obstruction.

I agree 100% - both that this changed situation COULD BE interference, and that it's a tough call either way. Additionally, I think you have to take the mannerisms of the runner into play - where was the runner looking? Directly at the catcher? Probably INT or USC. Over the shoulder trying to see if there's a play? Now it's probably OBS.

[Dakota]

Just to clarify... I intentionally left the nature of the contact between R1 and F2 vague to allow adding to / elaborating, etc. on the details to get at the boundaries among the calls. I also left vague how close the play actually was, stating only that R1 was expecting a close play.

[booker227]

We can state or paraphrase all of the rules, but in cases of obstruction, interference and malicious contact, it boils down to our judgement.
Personally, I don't believe that a runner has the right to run over a defensive player unless the action happens to quickly for the runner to avoid contact. For malicious contact, I look for intent. The hands, the head, the shoes, the speed and the shoulder of the player tells me what I need to know. The hands go up and in front, and not in a defensive way, but to make contact, I have malicious contact. If the player lowers her head or shoulder to make contact, I have malicous contact. If she lowers her shoulder, I have malicious contact. If she speeds up to make contact, then I have malicious contact. If I over- hear a coach instruct the player to make contact, then I have malicious contact. In each of the situations: dead ball, out, and ejection. In the last scenario, I would eject the coach as well.
The offensve player should make every effort possible to avoid contact. Because, when the defensive player without
the ball obstructs, impedes, contacts, or forces the runner away from her line to the base/plate, I have a delayed dead ball obstruction call.
We are the only trained professionals on the field, and to me, the rule book is there as a reference, but most often the calls come down to our judgement.
Every situation boils down to "what you see, is what you have."

[WestMichBlue]

STOP THE PRESSES. I just received an opinion for Randy Allen of the NFHS Softball Committee and if I am reading him right, then mcrowder’s original malicious contact or obstruction may be closer to the truth. It appears that the NFHS is definitely moving forward again on all non-malicious contact being called obstruction.

I gave him a play (like Dakota’s) with six different scenarios of the runner making some contact with a stationary defender about to catch the ball. I presented my opinion that the runner has an obligation to avoid contact – if possible – or be called for interference.

His reply: ”The rule is quite clear and involves umpire judgment. If the defensive player does not have the ball and blocks the base, hinders the runner and impedes access to the base, and contact ensues it is obstruction. If the umpire judges contact to be malicious contact, them the malicious contact supercedes obstruction and the runner is out and ejected. In your play, it is either obstruction or malicious contact. There is no incidental contact referenced in the rules book. Our goal is to more clearly define obstruction.”

Emphasis mine.

The end result of the removal of the words "runner stays on feet and crashes into defender with the ball or about to catch a thrown ball" from 8.6.14 thus removes Interference from our list of calls. We can only call obstruction or, if judged so, malicious contact.

IMO, this is another major change that, unfortunately, is not documented or taught well enough by the NFHS.

WMB

[Panda Bear]

continues to be with defensive players that set up in the way, be it at home plate, or elsewhere (1 of Mr. Rowe's favorite gripes for years has been 1st. basemen set up wrong! I agree with his assessment of that problem too).

Even the "borderline" malicious contact wouldn't have happened if the defender properly set up out of the lane until making the catch, and then either swipe tagged or moved into the lane.

Once obstructing defenders don't get "bailed out"/"rewarded" by getting the out for contact they really caused, they will learn to set up properly & legally. (Also more safely.)

[CecilOne]

I have said "I believe the runner must deviate and avoid contact if possible and assume that the umpire will call obstruction" for years and also that avoiding collisions is the runner's responsibility when the fielder is making a play (not obstructing). In both cases, I usually get disagreement.