Train Wreck, Malicious Contact, or Obstruction.

[Steve M]

Rattlehead,
I'm in agreement with the rest of the gang. You don't have a rule-based reason to not score the run. Since you judged that the runner was able to avoid the catcher and chose not to, you do have reason to eject for USC. Depending on whether you & your partner felt the catcher had a play on R3, you either have that runner out or on the base she had attained at the time of the contact.

[debeau]

The run scores , you cant take that off the team unless it is an appeal for something and there is none here .
A runner at full speed cannot slow down immediatley and it is very hard to avoid a collision , after all it is only 3 feet and the way the runner chose her base path I imagine thats the way she would have gone , a big angle virtually heading back towards 1st and thats where the catcher was .
At most you could have an ejection plus runner closest to home out but run scores

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by debeau

The run scores , you cant take that off the team unless it is an appeal for something and there is none here .
A runner at full speed cannot slow down immediatley and it is very hard to avoid a collision , after all it is only 3 feet and the way the runner chose her base path I imagine thats the way she would have gone , a big angle virtually heading back towards 1st and thats where the catcher was .
At most you could have an ejection plus runner closest to home out but run scores

I'm assuming that by "at most," you're saying that there was a play that could be made on R3, yes? Otherwise, if R3 is standing on 1st or 2nd and not making any move to advance, R2 didn't hinder F2's ability to make a play because... well... there is no play to be made. As such, no INT, no out.

[bkbjones]

1. Score the run.
2. Run the runner.
3. If the defensive team would have retired another runner or the batter/runner, ring that one up.
4. Yes, you can have malice without intent - by reason of insanity, which some coach is going to be after this play is done.

[debeau]

NCSA
Of course

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

...
4. Yes, you can have malice without intent - by reason of insanity, which some coach is going to be after this play is done.

Don't know if you were joking here... insane coach and all. But anyway,

malice
n.
1 active ill will; desire to harm another or to do mischief; spite
2 Law evil intent; state of mind shown by intention to do, or intentional doing of, something unlawful
malice aforethought (or prepense) a deliberate intention and plan to do something unlawful, as murder

But, a violent collision is not necessarily USC.

[CecilOne]

I thought that weeks ago, we concluded a topic with violent being the interp. of malicious and that runners charging into fielders violently was ejectable regardless of intent. I hope I don't have to look for it, if someone can confirm or deny; might have been NFHS.

[Dakota]

I think that was NFHS; ASA uses the term "flagrant" anyway.

In the context of the OP, a key for me would be did the runner have a reasonable chance to avoid / attempt to avoid, or did her mannerisms indicate intent (raised forearm, diverted path, etc)? She had a right to run full speed through the base with a throw on the way. As already stated 3' is not very far.

Softball is a contact sport.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I think that was NFHS; ASA uses the term "flagrant" anyway.

After all, to rule malicious contact, the umpire would have to judge "intent" and we all know how ASA feels about that now, don't we?

[tmielke]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I thought that weeks ago, we concluded a topic with violent being the interp. of malicious and that runners charging into fielders violently was ejectable regardless of intent. I hope I don't have to look for it, if someone can confirm or deny; might have been NFHS.

NFHS defines Malicious Contact as contact with excessive force. There is no mention of intent.

Tom

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tmielke

NFHS defines Malicious Contact as contact with excessive force. There is no mention of intent.

Tom

Thanks, "excessive force" is what I meant by violent, but couldn't remember the wording.