Opinions please.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Of course, not, we weren't there

Sounds like a solid call to me. Don't know the condition of the runner, but if that trip caused any level of injury, F4 may be heading to the parking lot.

Just for clarification, are you suggesting using the level of injury to determine malicious contact or unsportsmanlike behavior?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by topper

Just for clarification, are you suggesting using the level of injury to determine malicious contact or unsportsmanlike behavior?

Are we still keeping the running redundancy joke alive?

Malicious contact is unsportsmanlike behavior.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Just for clarification, are you suggesting using the level of injury to determine malicious contact or unsportsmanlike behavior?

Just for clarification, just where did I suggest that be the case?

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just for clarification, just where did I suggest that be the case?

Okay, are you using the fact that there was any injury at all in determining MC or USC?

Are we still keeping the running redundancy joke alive?

Malicious contact is unsportsmanlike behavior.

How is this redundant? The two are not mutually inclusive.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by topper

How is this redundant? The two are not mutually inclusive.

Correct, but if you're looking at this sitch from a "malicious contact" point of view, either way you slice it, it's USC.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Okay, are you using the fact that there was any injury at all in determining MC or USC?

Yes, just as I would with a fake tag which, by definition, this is.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yes, just as I would with a fake tag which, by definition, this is.

Technically, I believe the above statement is correct, as the definition of a fake tag is:

A form of obstruction by a fielder who attempts to tag a runner without the ball and thereby impedes a runner advancing or returning to a base.
In my catcher misses ball but tries to tag runner anyway scenario, I'm unlikely to call OBS since the runner scored anyway.

I'm more likely to call OBS when F5 positions him/herself on the base and pretends to be in the act of receiving a throw from the outfield in an attempt to get the runner to slide into the base or slow down when in fact no play is being made on that runner. In fact, I have called that exact play a couple of times in the past couple of years and added a warning to the coach and player that it better not happen again.

I think this is one of those rules where intent actually does come into play, as in the intent of the defender attempting to deceive a baserunner. While this is acceptable practice in MLB and is seen quite often on a run and hit where the runner doesn't pick up where the batted ball is, I think the actual intent for ASA and other associations is to not allow this deception. So maybe this is one of those rules that might use a bit of wordsmithing.

A tag without the ball in almost all cases will result in OBS, but not UC or MC. A "pretend" tag would carry the additional penalty of UC.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

A tag without the ball in almost all cases will result in OBS, but not UC or MC. A "pretend" tag would carry the additional penalty of UC.

I think what many of us had in mind was that the fielder was never even attempting to field the batted ball and was attempting a "bush league" play.

She must've been hanging around too many of her daddy's SP games.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I think what many of us had in mind was that the fielder was never even attempting to field the batted ball and was attempting a "bush league" play.

She must've been hanging around too many of her daddy's SP games.

How do you know it wasn't her daddy's SP game? There is no indication of the game, division or class.