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

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?

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

Tom

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.

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

[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?

[quote=Bluefoot]If that were the original scenario, I'd worry about it, but it wasn't.

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

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

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

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

I'm done with the "what ifs"

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.

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.