The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 10:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
Almost Malicious contact ?

Fed rules. Working solo on a JV game. Runner on 2B. Hit to RF. After F9 gets done bobbling,dropping and kicking the ball we have a Play at the plate.
F2 is standing on the 1B side of homeplate. Throw comes in. F2 catches it , lunges towards runner who didn't slide. Think Jeremy Giambi kinda deal. SO the only contact I have is pretty much F2 applying the tag. I have safe. I am being evaluated and after the game I was told I should have called for runner out for not sliding. "Because it's a safety issue," So I nod my head and Thought thats wrong. Don't I have to actually have malicious contact to call the runner out and eject at that point.
I agree the runner should have slid-she didn't -but I still had no malicious contact and ended up with minimal contact....

What say you ?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 11:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Yep. Says right in the rule book, "Runners must slide. It's a safety issue."

Well, doesn't it?
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 11:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymule
Yep. Says right in the rule book, "Runners must slide. It's a safety issue."

Well, doesn't it?
Ahem...

Chessref, you got it right. A runner remaining upright while having a tag applied is not malicious contact (although I DID have a coach argue last year - and I MEAN argue - that it was interference - ...BTW it was a short argument!)

Unless there was something insane done with your local JV rules, your evaluator was wrong (and apparently not qualified to be evaluating other umpires).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 11:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Are you serious?!?! You have someone who has elevated to a level where he could be evaluating you, and he still thinks there's a must slide rule? Oh my. Seems to me that YOU should be evaluating HIM.

I've said this before, but the very nature of the word "malicious" includes "intent". You cannot unintentionally maliciously contact someone.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
No crazy local rules

Nah no crazy local rules, other than 2 hour time limit for JV. I don't consider that one crazy.

Me thinks it was one of those "personal philosophy rules" that people around here love so much.

To really upset you he took me through the whole scerairo on how he would present it to the coach and how the coach would understand cause.....it was a safety issue......

Last edited by Chess Ref; Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:49am.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 11:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Are you serious?!?! You have someone who has elevated to a level where he could be evaluating you, and he still thinks there's a must slide rule? Oh my. Seems to me that YOU should be evaluating HIM.
Yup. This about sums it up!

No malicious contact by any stretch of the imagination.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 12:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Zillions of coaches, players, fans, and even other umpires have told me that runners must slide. It's a safety issue. The head of a rec department for an entire township even told me this. He quoted the rule book: "Slide or veer"— though he couldn't remember the specific number of the rule offhand. I'm looking through my book and can't seem to find it. But it's gotta be there. Everybody knows runners must slide. I'll keep looking.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 12:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: York County, Maine
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymule
Zillions of coaches, players, fans, and even other umpires have told me that runners must slide. It's a safety issue. The head of a rec department for an entire township even told me this. He quoted the rule book: "Slide or veer"— though he couldn't remember the specific number of the rule offhand. I'm looking through my book and can't seem to find it. But it's gotta be there. Everybody knows runners must slide. I'll keep looking.

Same page as the "tie goes to the runner" and "the hands are part of the bat".
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 01:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Ref
Fed rules. Working solo on a JV game. Runner on 2B. Hit to RF. After F9 gets done bobbling,dropping and kicking the ball we have a Play at the plate.
F2 is standing on the 1B side of homeplate. Throw comes in. F2 catches it , lunges towards runner who didn't slide. Think Jeremy Giambi kinda deal. SO the only contact I have is pretty much F2 applying the tag. I have safe. I am being evaluated and after the game I was told I should have called for runner out for not sliding. "Because it's a safety issue," So I nod my head and Thought thats wrong. Don't I have to actually have malicious contact to call the runner out and eject at that point.
I agree the runner should have slid-she didn't -but I still had no malicious contact and ended up with minimal contact....

What say you ?
I am willing to bet that your evaluator is one of those guys who "has been calling games for years" and has a 5 foot long chain around his ankle that keeps him from leaving the plate area.
You need to have a good heart to heart with your board members and NICELY ask why this is being added to your evaluation when it is incorrect.
I am an evaluator for my association, (but of course, I never make mistakes ) and I listen to the opposing opinions of those I have evaluated. Sometimes I learn something too.

An evaluator must listen in the debrief as much or more than talk.
I try, note the try part, to ask questions about the item I notice.
If an umpire can adequately explain themselves more often than not they will correct their mistake without much input by me.

An evaluator must also, be ready to refer to the rulebook and casebook (or local association adaptions) to point the person evaluated to the correct information. Sounds like your guy did neither.

Remember, make it a NICE talk. Ask questions. Don't point fingers.
I suggest that you not even name the evaluator, just ask about an evaluation you received and then go into the point you need to cover.
__________________
ISF
ASA/USA Elite
NIF
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 02:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Are you serious?!?! You have someone who has elevated to a level where he could be evaluating you, and he still thinks there's a must slide rule? Oh my. Seems to me that YOU should be evaluating HIM.

I've said this before, but the very nature of the word "malicious" includes "intent". You cannot unintentionally maliciously contact someone.
I disagree....Runner coming home, catcher gets the ball about 1ft up 3rd base line, runner looks back toward outfield to see where ball is and runs over the catcher. Intentional?- not really, but I'm calling malicious...
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 02:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by archangel
I disagree....Runner coming home, catcher gets the ball about 1ft up 3rd base line, runner looks back toward outfield to see where ball is and runs over the catcher. Intentional?- not really, but I'm calling malicious...
Then you are intentionally making a poor decision. Why would you do such a thing?

Malicious means "with malice". In terms of how we are supposed to call it, it means "with intent to harm". How could one have malice or intent to harm in an unintentional collision? That's asinine. Not only do you not have a rule reason for making such a call... but there's no logical reason either. The intent of the malicious contact rule is to penalize someone for trying to hurt someone. A VIOLENT collision can certainly be unintentional - and should not be penalized as malicious.

I don't even understand why you would feel the DESIRE to make such an incorrect call - what's your motivation here?
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 03:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by archangel
I disagree....Runner coming home, catcher gets the ball about 1ft up 3rd base line, runner looks back toward outfield to see where ball is and runs over the catcher. Intentional?- not really, but I'm calling malicious...
I sure hope not. Coach protests, and you tell the UIC or protest committee or whoever is in charge what you typed here, and they win the protest. There is no rule to support this, and subsequently you have no leg to stand on.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 05:06pm
JEL JEL is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Ref
SO the only contact I have is pretty much F2 applying the tag.

What say you ?

If that's it, NO MALICIOUS (or otherwise) CONTACT!

Evaluator's wires weren't touching that day!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 08, 2007, 08:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Desert....
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by sargee7
Same page as the "tie goes to the runner" and "the hands are part of the bat".

a tie DOES go to the runner..... scratch that one from the myth department


But, but fed rules... the evaluator is wrong....
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 09, 2007, 05:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,362
Didn't we recently hear that malicious means forceful, likely to cause injury, etc. not necessarily with intent? IOW, the effect is "malicious" as if it were a synonym for violent or vicious.
Yes, I know that's not what the word really means.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malicious contact SC Ump Softball 15 Tue Mar 15, 2005 03:53pm
Obstruction / Malicious Contact mcrowder Softball 32 Fri May 21, 2004 02:22pm
Malicious Contact - should there be more of a penalty PeteBooth Baseball 5 Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:54am
Malicious Contact Gre144 Baseball 1 Wed Jul 04, 2001 11:42am
Malicious Contact (FED) Gre144 Baseball 1 Tue Jun 26, 2001 09:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1