Train Wreck, Malicious Contact, or Obstruction.

[Bluefoot]

If the "Catcher is in line with Home and third" and only about "3 feet behind the plate" and "The runner" is running at "full speed", then this sure sounds like OBS, above all else. The F2 should not be in the runner's path, even if it's just beyond the base. The runner has the right to run at full speed if the fielder is not about to tag the runner with the ball. If the errant throw drew the F2 up the third base line and into the runner's path before she got to home plate, then it would be OBS. So because the errant throw drew the F2 into the runner's direct path, right on the other side of home plate, it should still be OBS. At most it would have to be crash and no penalty on the runner, since the errant throw drew the F2 into the runner's path. You'd call it a crash or OBS if the F2 got drawn up the 3B line and right into the full-steam runner, wouldn't you?

The F2 should know, or should be taught, to get out of the runner's way. The runner just can't 'disappear' after touching home. What is the runner supposed to do, slide into F2 after scoring?

[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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Bluefoot

If the "Catcher is in line with Home and third" and only about "3 feet behind the plate" and "The runner" is running at "full speed", then this sure sounds like OBS, above all else.

Not possible. If the runner is at full speed and there is no mention of an altered path, it cannot be OBS as the catcher did not impede the runner.

The F2 should not be in the runner's path, even if it's just beyond the base. The runner has the right to run at full speed if the fielder is not about to tag the runner with the ball. If the errant throw drew the F2 up the third base line and into the runner's path before she got to home plate, then it would be OBS. So because the errant throw drew the F2 into the runner's direct path, right on the other side of home plate, it should still be OBS.

Please note, once the player touches the plate, s/he is no longer a runner.

At most it would have to be crash and no penalty on the runner, since the errant throw drew the F2 into the runner's path. You'd call it a crash or OBS if the F2 got drawn up the 3B line and right into the full-steam runner, wouldn't you?

The F2 should know, or should be taught, to get out of the runner's way. The runner just can't 'disappear' after touching home. What is the runner supposed to do, slide into F2 after scoring?

Or could slide at the plate. Point one, the player is not a runner. Point two, there is no possible OBS call here. Point three, that only leaves USC if, and ONLY IF, the umpire judges the runner made no attempt to check up or avoid .

[Bluefoot]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA]Not possible. If the runner is at full speed and there is no mention of an altered path, it cannot be OBS as the catcher did not impede the runner.
QUOTE]

You've got to be kidding. So if the F2, without the ball stands right next to home plate, that is, on the 1B side of it, directly on the baseline drawn directly from 3B and home plate, 60 feet and 1 inch away from 3B, that the runner is expected to not run directly into F2? If the F2's presence in that spot causes the runner to deviate her path, so she does not get injured by running into F2, then that would be OBS, I believe.

Say R1 misses home plate but runs into F2 (without the ball) in the above scenario. R1 has the opportunity to move to touch home plate, but if the collision with F2 prevents R1 from doing so, and then if R1 is tagged out before reaching home plate, then F2 has committed OBS on R1 because F2 impeded R1 from touching home, while without the ball.

I understand your point that the runner is no longer a runner once she has scored, but is the runner expected to go from running full-tilt to stopping on a dime? Or changing direction and breaking her ankle? What would you call if an F3, without the ball, stood directly behind 1B as a runner was trying to beat out an infield hit? F3 is not in the runner's way between the batter's box and 1B, but is clearly impeding the runner's direct path that goes through the base? Are you meaning that that should not also be OBS?

[IRISHMAFIA]

[quote=Bluefoot]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not possible. If the runner is at full speed and there is no mention of an altered path, it cannot be OBS as the catcher did not impede the runner.
QUOTE]

You've got to be kidding. So if the F2, without the ball stands right next to home plate, that is, on the 1B side of it, directly on the baseline drawn directly from 3B and home plate, 60 feet and 1 inch away from 3B, that the runner is expected to not run directly into F2?

If that were the original scenario, I'd worry about it, but it wasn't.

If the F2's presence in that spot causes the runner to deviate her path, so she does not get injured by running into F2, then that would be OBS, I believe.

Never said that wasn't, but if it were the case, the runner wouldn't be at full-speed, would she?

Say R1 misses home plate but runs into F2 (without the ball) in the above scenario. R1 has the opportunity to move to touch home plate, but if the collision with F2 prevents R1 from doing so, and then if R1 is tagged out before reaching home plate, then F2 has committed OBS on R1 because F2 impeded R1 from touching home, while without the ball.

No, she hasn't because the runner is considered to have touched the plate once she passes it.

I understand your point that the runner is no longer a runner once she has scored, but is the runner expected to go from running full-tilt to stopping on a dime? Or changing direction and breaking her ankle?

Never made such a statement. I said attempt to check-up or avoid.

What would you call if an F3, without the ball, stood directly behind 1B as a runner was trying to beat out an infield hit? F3 is not in the runner's way between the batter's box and 1B, but is clearly impeding the runner's direct path that goes through the base? Are you meaning that that should not also be OBS?

Again, that is a runner and if there is an impedement, it is OBS.

I'm done with the "what ifs"

[mcrowder]

Bluefoot - in your 60 feet 1 inch scenario, you are going to have SOMETHING... but it is not obstruction if the runner is not, well ..., obstructed. A runner running full speed without changing direction who is not contacted before reaching the base she was trying to reach is by definition NOT obstruction... you have to have 2 things for obstruction - the fielder without the ball in position to hinder the runner's progress (which, after discussing in another thread, I now agree we have in either the 1 inch or 3 feet away scenario in this thread), AND (AND!!!!, not OR) a runner actually hindered due to that action.

Without SOME sort of deviation (slowing, sliding, turning, etc), there is no obstruction.

Now ... in your 1 inch scenario, the runner must do SOMETHING to avoid malicious contact with that fielder. The instant she does ANYTHING to avoid that, we have OBS... but if she does NOTHING, and simply kills the catcher, we have MC, USC, and a likely ejection.

[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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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

"Excessive", not "extreme". Again, like "Malice", "Excess" would imply, "More than necessary", which again, to me, implies or includes intent.

If they wanted unintentional violent contact to warrant an ejection, they would have worded the rule differently or at least included a caseplay to illustrate this.

In every discussion in every clinic I've ever attended, "Malicious" (meaning "with malice") requires intent.