Train Wreck, Malicious Contact, or Obstruction.
 

I had this last weekend.

14U ASA Rules, 2 Outs, R1 on 3rd R2 on 2nd, Batter hits a blooper into right field R1 scores, R2 rounds third and heads for home.

Ball is comming in to the catcher but throw is off line and there will not even been any play. Cathcher is in line with Home and third but at least 3feet to the right and behind the plate. The runner (full speed) touches home but continues to run thru the catcher, causing a pretty violent collision. I killed the ball, put the BR on second and called the coches out to check on thier players. During this time my partner and I got together and discussed what had happend. We both felt that R2 should have attempted to avoid the contact with the catcher since she was so far out of the play.

Atfer this discussion during which parents on the defesive side were just going nuts. We called both coaches out and informed them that based on the fact that runners need to attempt to avoid contact even though it didn't appear to be intent of nature but the contact was malicious. R2 was to be declaired out and no run would score. Both coaches even the offensive coach didn't even argue, so game on.

I know this is a HTBT play but, if you felt that the contact could have been avoided, would you have ruled the same way?



After

How do you have unintentional maliciousness?

It is very HTBT ... but I don't understand how one would rule MALICE without ruling INTENT. One seems to hinge on the other, don't you think? And a VIOLENT collision is not always a MALICIOUS collision.

Not sure how you got the run off the board either, considering that the run scored 3 steps before the contact.

But, as you say, HTBT... if the contact was violent and avoidable, I could see a defacto ruling of intent and malice - just make sure you don't say, when explaining the call, that you felt the contact was unintentional, but malicious - I'd protest that in a heartbeat and likely win.

If anything at all, I would rule that the run counts and I *might* eject the player for unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd lean a little more towards the "wreck" side of things. Very HTBT.

No, I wouldn't.

If anything, the only penalty you have is USC and all you can do with that is eject the player. Unless, in your judgment, you believe the catcher could have possibly retired R3 when the collision occured, then you could rule that runner out. But don't do that just to penalize the team. If there was no play, there is no INT.

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.

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.

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.

NCSA
Of course

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.

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.

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.

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? :rolleyes:

No way she should be out

Let me put it this way - My dad drove intercity bus for a living, and one thing all bus drivers HATE is people who pop right in front of a bus, thinking it can stop on a dime...same thing here - no way that kid can stop pn a dime, and even try to alter her path...not in 3 feet...

<i>Dakota:Softball is a contact sport.</i>

Amen, brother