Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
humanbackstop19

NFHS Malicious Contact?????

Recommended Posts

I read that as "Time! That's MC!" at the time of MC, not in between the two acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
51 minutes ago, udbrky said:

I read that as "Time! That's MC!" at the time of MC, not in between the two acts.

Me too. The MC/INT makes the ball dead, so that's what we're announcing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maven said:

Me too. The MC/INT makes the ball dead, so that's what we're announcing.

It really looks like he's going w/ the DDB mechanic and awarding the run. 

It's a miss in my opinion. 

Screen Shot 2018-07-25 at 11.06.54 AM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the OBS call. I seem to recall some state (maybe IA) deciding to keep the FED OBS mechanic used here. Fine.

But we have to keep officiating! Play is not over, and the award is not automatic in this instance. If he just never saw MC because he saw only OBS, that is a big miss.

Apologies for returning to football, but we see this issue with novice (and bad) football officials: they drop a flag (for holding or some such) and then tune out the rest of the play, often missing a big PF right in their laps. As here, when the ball is live (and even just after it becomes dead), bad things can happen. We MUST keep working!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maven said:

I have no problem with the OBS call. I seem to recall some state (maybe IA) deciding to keep the FED OBS mechanic used here. Fine.

But we have to keep officiating! Play is not over, and the award is not automatic in this instance. If he just never saw MC because he saw only OBS, that is a big miss.

Apologies for returning to football, but we see this issue with novice (and bad) football officials: they drop a flag (for holding or some such) and then tune out the rest of the play, often missing a big PF right in their laps. As here, when the ball is live (and even just after it becomes dead), bad things can happen. We MUST keep working!

I don't think we are disputing the obstruction or the mechanic he chooses to use. (We know what he has) However, the end result should have resulted in an out and and ejection, not scoring the run on obstruction.

Even in NCAA (Yes, I know this is a FED thread), it's been nearly a decade since the obstruction followed by MC would allow the run to score but result in an ejection.

The obstruction part was right...that's the basic/elementary part of the play for umpires. The more advanced/correct call is following it up with the MC, Out, & Ejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, johnnyg08 said:

I don't think we are disputing the obstruction. However, the end result should have resulted in an out and and ejection, not scoring the run on obstruction.

Even in NCAA (Yes, I know this is a FED thread), it's been nearly a decade since the obstruction followed by MC would allow the run to score but result in an ejection.

The obstruction part was right...that's the basic/elementary part of the play for umpires. The more advanced/correct call is following it up with the MC, Out, & Ejection.

You're talking about outcomes. I'm talking about mechanics: what did he do that prevented him from seeing the MC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maven said:

You're talking about outcomes. I'm talking about mechanics: what did he do that prevented him from seeing the MC?

In my opinion, lack of rules knowledge. Everybody in the stadium probably saw the collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, maven said:

You're talking about outcomes. I'm talking about mechanics: what did he do that prevented him from seeing the MC?

He was looking right up the catcher's back side and feet planted. He did not move with the play to use the wedge that would have allowed him to see if the runner made an attempt to avoid or if he deviated into the catcher. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JSam21 said:

Was late on the rotation and was looking right up the catcher's back side... 

Perhaps, but do you need to be in the head on collision to know it was a head on collision? 

If he had the obstruction, he sure as heck could have made the proper decision on the B/R blowing up F2. 

In my mind, it was lack of rules knowledge around malicious contact and obstruction. 

That's the only way this should get missed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Perhaps, but do you need to be in the head on collision to know it was a head on collision? 

If he had the obstruction, he sure as heck could have made the proper decision on the B/R blowing up F2. 

In my mind, it was lack of rules knowledge around malicious contact and obstruction. 

That's the only way this should get missed. 

Well it is the nuance of the call... as well. Was the collision avoidable? Did the runner attempt to avoid? Etc...

 

I'm thinking he saw the one step to the right and then saw the obs and then "stopped working" the play. If you notice the point comes up for the OBS at almost the same time the collision happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, humanbackstop19 said:

I like the NCAA input on these types of plays.  Without citation, it basically says the runner MUST avoid an avoidable collision.  That puts it into the hands of the runner to avoid this type of train wreck IF possible.  Which, we all seem to agree the runner came back into the catcher in this OP.

Therefore, the runner has four options:

1) Stop and give himself up (and hope OBS would be called) (In this video it was being called)

2) Turn around and retreat to previous base

3) Go around the fielder making a play on the ball, or

4) Perform a legal slide

If the runner does none of these four and the result is a collision like in the OP, there's warrant for an ejection.   

Also, what's not in the link, after the collision, the runner pops right up, shows no remorse for what just occurred, and pumps his fist and exchanges high fives with teammates.  

20180725_083231.jpg

Do you have this angle on video? This would be a great clip! It would tell us exactly what the umpire saw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JSam21 said:

Well it is the nuance of the call... as well. Was the collision avoidable? Did the runner attempt to avoid? Etc...

 

I'm thinking he saw the one step to the right and then saw the obs and then "stopped working" the play. If you notice the point comes up for the OBS at almost the same time the collision happens. 

It's possible I guess. Without being overly critical, I struggle with how something like this gets missed. We are all human and it happens. The great thing that will come out of this is we have an excellent clip for learning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

You're talking about outcomes. I'm talking about mechanics: what did he do that prevented him from seeing the MC?

In the OP video, you can see U1 never fully rotated to a third base line extended spot. Just got within the vicinity.  He MAY have been able to make the call if in the right spot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Do you have this angle on video? This would be a great clip! It would tell us exactly what the umpire saw. 

It came from the OP.  Same angle, I just couldn't post the video off the stream page, so used the twitter link which was the same on the video board.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, humanbackstop19 said:

In the OP video, you can see U1 never fully rotated to a third base line extended spot. Just got within the vicinity.  He MAY have been able to make the call if in the right spot.  

Gosh wouldn't that be almost a better spot to see the collision? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with Rich Ives on this one. F2 is still sliding into the basepath, without the ball, as BR hits him. I'm not sure if contact is unavoidable at that point. 

I could see a MC call if the runner was coming from 3B and the play was closer, but there is no reason for F2 to be there. Also, watch F2, arms are down as if he's expecting contact. He's not attempting to receive the throw or make a tag. He's just getting in the way. At this point, the runner is just trying to get to the plate, he's in oxygen debt and critical thinking has probably already shut down. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mister B said:

I'm going with Rich Ives on this one. F2 is still sliding into the basepath, without the ball, as BR hits him. I'm not sure if contact is unavoidable at that point. 

I could see a MC call if the runner was coming from 3B and the play was closer, but there is no reason for F2 to be there. Also, watch F2, arms are down as if he's expecting contact. He's not attempting to receive the throw or make a tag. He's just getting in the way. At this point, the runner is just trying to get to the plate, he's in oxygen debt and critical thinking has probably already shut down. 

Nothing of what you said in your second paragraph is relevant to a malicious contact call/non-call. 

As for your first one, you can have MC on unavoidable contact, and this is a great example. The fact there was contact might not warrant an MC call in itself, but the actions of the runner in engaging in contact definitely do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see the MC, my first reaction is normally calling time. I'll have to rewire my brain to change the order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

When I see the MC, my first reaction is normally calling time. I'll have to rewire my brain to change the order.

Why? It's proper to call time first when a runner commits MC. Even when a fielder commits MC (which is rarer), we kill it and award bases to nullify the act. (3-3-1 PENALTY)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess the wiring was right all along then. My mentor will be so proud!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matt said:

Nothing of what you said in your second paragraph is relevant to a malicious contact call/non-call. 

I understand that, I'm just pointing out that the rules don't take into account some of the physical nuances of the game and the physical limitations of the human body. 

 

I also understand that "by the rules" it is MC. I just think that the rules allow enough of a loophole for this F2 to play into. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 5:29 PM, Kevin_K said:

I would be willing to bet that you would suggest that the onus should be on the runner if your F2 got trucked like that.

I would bet that as a coach it could be my runner or my catcher. 

I stand by my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×