Almost Malicious contact ?

[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 ?

[greymule]

Yep. Says right in the rule book, "Runners must slide. It's a safety issue."

Well, doesn't it?

[Dakota]

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).

[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.

[Chess Ref]

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......

[Skahtboi]

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.

[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.

[sargee7]

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".

[scottk_61]

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.

[archangel]

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...

[mcrowder]

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?

[Skahtboi]

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.

[JEL]

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!

[azbigdawg]

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....

[CecilOne]

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.