Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
humanbackstop19

NFHS Malicious Contact?????

Recommended Posts

Still trying to figure out how the heck PU ended up where he was. :confused:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

 Doesn't intent play a part in MC?  MC carries a significant penalty and I'm cautious when enforcing it!  Avoiding contact IMO was impossible. I'm surprised he avoided the PU. To be honest, in the video I had the runner advancing at full speed and took a step to avoid, but then the catcher moved into his path at the last second.  Then I saw the one still and thought to myself, "wow, I can see MC". Then I saw the last still and looks like the runner let up a little.

Point is, we don't have this luxury in real time.  

I'm not going to lose sleep over the call.  

I always feel, you know it when you see it.  I don't see it here.

 

Share this post


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

Still trying to figure out how the heck PU ended up where he was. :confused:

3 man rotation. U1 and U3 are in A and D. U3 rotates in and picks up the runner after he touches 1B or goes out on the hit to cover the catch, since the ball goes over F8's head, PU rotates to take the play at 3B, U1, after the runner clears 1B, sees/hears PU going to 3B and comes in to cover the plate. There should have been a throw to F2, but F8 fell. 

PU probably got a late start on the cover and ended up where he was. 

Share this post


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

3 man rotation. U1 and U3 are in A and D. U3 rotates in and picks up the runner after he touches 1B or goes out on the hit to cover the catch, since the ball goes over F8's head, PU rotates to take the play at 3B, U1, after the runner clears 1B, sees/hears PU going to 3B and comes in to cover the plate. There should have been a throw to F2, but F8 fell. 

PU probably got a late start on the cover and ended up where he was. 

I'm perfectly aware of rotations. I must have miss the section at my last clinic on when to stand on the 3B line 15 feet from the bag when R1 is rounding 3rd heading home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's a different clip with some of the before and after:

 

When I watched the first video I thought MC, no doubt, 100%. This video changed my mind. The catcher moves into the path of R1, and I see R1 bracing for impact. He doesn't launch into the catcher, he doesn't extend his arms into him and he didn't initiate the collision. The catcher initiated contact and the runner didn't do anything unusual in preparation for the collision. He just kept running, which he's allowed to do. I'm with U1 on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the runner would have had to do here is move one foot in or one foot out to make an effort to go around him versus directly through him. This isn't tough. Many of us do it each day in our automobiles traveling 10x faster to swerve around a squirrel or a barrier up ahead. Go around the catcher, the umpire will (hopefully) call the obstruction and all is right with the world. He had plenty of time to adjust. The catcher moved in a line toward the runner, not forward or backward. In reality F2 could have been stationery and it wouldn't have changed the collision since the runner was dead set on going through F2. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

All the runner would have had to do here is move one foot in or one foot out to make an effort to go around him versus directly through him. This isn't tough. Many of us do it each day in our automobiles traveling 10x faster to swerve around a squirrel or a barrier up ahead. Go around the catcher, the umpire will (hopefully) call the obstruction and all is right with the world. He had plenty of time to adjust. The catcher moved in a line toward the runner, not forward or backward. In reality F2 could have been stationery and it wouldn't have changed the collision since the runner was dead set on going through F2. 

The catcher moved at least 3 or 4 feet into foul territory, directly into the path of the runner. If F2 is stationary, as you proposed, then this is undoubtedly MC. But the catcher deviated into the path of the oncoming runner. Barreling full speed towards home, paired with the late adjustment by F2, R1 could've maybe gotten a step in either direction but likely still would've clipped F2. Considering hypotheticals isn't what's important here though. This isn't one of those "avoidable" collisions. This is one where F2 initiated the collision, and unless R1 did something he shouldn't have (launching, deviating from his path to run over F2, extending his arms, etc), he's protected. 

Edited by Stk004
unavoidable changed to avoidable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stk004 said:

The catcher moved at least 3 or 4 feet into foul territory, directly into the path of the runner. If F2 is stationary, as you proposed, then this is undoubtedly MC. But the catcher deviated into the path of the oncoming runner. Barreling full speed towards home, paired with the late adjustment by F2, R1 could've maybe gotten a step in either direction but likely still would've clipped F2. Considering hypotheticals isn't what's important here though. This isn't one of those "unavoidable" collisions. This is one where F2 initiated the collision, and unless R1 did something he shouldn't have (launching, deviating from his path to run over F2, extending his arms, etc), he's protected. 

So you have MC on the catcher? 

Share this post


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

So you have MC on the catcher? 

That's not what I said. F2 initiating the collision doesn't mean he committed MC, it means he moved into the path of the runner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stk004 said:

That's not what I said. F2 initiating the collision doesn't mean he committed MC, it means he moved into the path of the runner. 

So you have an "unavoidable collision" obstruction and the run scoring (confirming the call on the field)? 

Share this post


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

So you have an "unavoidable collision" obstruction and the run scoring (confirming the call on the field)? 

Correct. Post edited, I meant avoidable in my post. Good catch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

Correct. Post edited, I meant avoidable in my post. Good catch. 

No problem. I guess my take is that this play has no place in high school baseball. 

He had this entire area where he could have adjusted and tried to reach the plate, at the same time properly drawing the obstruction call. 

The runner initiated the contact, the catcher did not initiate any contact, he was going for the baseball. That is not initiating contact. The runner has everything in front of him, the catcher is looking at the baseball with a general feel of where he is.

 

Slide.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the runner is trying to move to his right, just as the catcher moves that same direction. Also, if he's going for the ball, where is it?

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

I'm perfectly aware of rotations.

No offense meant. I'm still working on getting better at 3 and 4 man, so it helps to "say it out loud." I think he was caught thinking it was a stand up double and then possibly an easy play at 3B. Wasn't ready for F8 to fall and probably got stuck there trying to figure out what just happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stk004 said:

When I watched the first video I thought MC, no doubt, 100%. This video changed my mind. The catcher moves into the path of R1, and I see R1 bracing for impact. He doesn't launch into the catcher, he doesn't extend his arms into him and he didn't initiate the collision. The catcher initiated contact and the runner didn't do anything unusual in preparation for the collision. He just kept running, which he's allowed to do. I'm with U1 on this one. 

The video attached to this post is not the correct angle to judge the possible OBS/INT/MC on this play. It follows the runner around the bases, and the contact blows up on us. It's the angle that a fan would have, or an inexperienced umpire who does not know where to look or position himself.

We want to see the line that the runner takes and the movement of F2. The angle down the 3BL (looking either direction, out or in) is what we want for judging this play.

As for "just kept running, which he's allowed to do," that's not true. By rule the runner must attempt to avoid contact with a fielder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 5:12 PM, Rich Ives said:

I see the catcher moving to his left and dropping his left shoulder into the runner's chest.

Some are too quick to see MC.

Most always put the onus on the runner.

wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this question shows my inexperience, but, is this a situation where the umpires should get together to discuss what happened to get it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mister B said:

3 man rotation. U1 and U3 are in A and D. U3 rotates in and picks up the runner after he touches 1B or goes out on the hit to cover the catch, since the ball goes over F8's head, PU rotates to take the play at 3B, U1, after the runner clears 1B, sees/hears PU going to 3B and comes in to cover the plate. There should have been a throw to F2, but F8 fell. 

PU probably got a late start on the cover and ended up where he was. 

Various clips show this to be a four man crew with U2 going out, U3 inside @ 2B, U1 at HP, and PU in no man's land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

In an effort to maximize the value of this clip. Please show me where the runner attempted to avoid the collision in this .gif

 

Animated_GIF-source.gif

This, at least to me, definitively proves that the catcher didn't materially move into an unavoidable collision. The runner made absolutely no attempt to do anything other than go in a direct line to the plate, catcher be damned. He had his line and dammit, he was sticking to it.

Upward crouch, initiating contact to the catcher's head/neck area, raising his elbow and shoulder in order to deliver a blow, no attempt whatsoever to avoid. What on earth do we need further to say it was MC? Frankly, while I deeply respect those who disagree, I'm troubled they don't see it.

And could the PU have had a worse angle? Completely screened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, scrounge said:

This, at least to me, definitively proves that the catcher didn't materially move into an unavoidable collision. The runner made absolutely no attempt to do anything other than go in a direct line to the plate, catcher be damned. He had his line and dammit, he was sticking to it.

Upward crouch, initiating contact to the catcher's head/neck area, raising his elbow and shoulder in order to deliver a blow, no attempt whatsoever to avoid. What on earth do we need further to say it was MC? Frankly, while I deeply respect those who disagree, I'm troubled they don't see it.

And could the PU have had a worse angle? Completely screened.

Without knowing where the throw was I have my doubts about the catcher's intention. He appears set up outside the foul line and then move into the runners path. Where would the actual throw take him? I don't see a ball in the clips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the catcher had no business being where he was without the ball or playing it, this is the kind of violent collision the rules were intended to eliminate by removing the "self-help" of the traditional "baseball play." If the runner must alter his path ("is impeded"), the remedy is obstruction. IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mister B said:

3 man rotation. U1 and U3 are in A and D. U3 rotates in and picks up the runner after he touches 1B or goes out on the hit to cover the catch, since the ball goes over F8's head, PU rotates to take the play at 3B, U1, after the runner clears 1B, sees/hears PU going to 3B and comes in to cover the plate. There should have been a throw to F2, but F8 fell. 

PU probably got a late start on the cover and ended up where he was. 

This was a 4-man crew.  U2 went out on the trouble ball, and the rotation by PU would reverted back to 3-man to third.  So, yes, he was VERY late on this rotation considering it was a clean 'for sure' extra-base hit over the CF's head.  

Share this post


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

Maybe this question shows my inexperience, but, is this a situation where the umpires should get together to discuss what happened to get it right?

I absolutely agree with that.  They SHOULD have gotten together and had an extensive conversation about this.  This was a 4-man crew.  There should have been a lot of eyes (8) seeing this play considering there were no trailing runners.  SOMEONE had to have additional information that U1 did not have since he blocked himself off from getting a good look by not reaching all the way to third base line extended to start.  This is probably the most disappointing aspect of this play; that during a 4-minute delay so that the defense could replace their catcher, nowhere on the video does it show the umpires get together and nail this thing out. and get the call right.  

If anybody judged MC (which is hard to think nobody wouldn't have), the calling umpire goes to the offensive coach (before changing the call) and states, "I have additional information that there was MC on the collision.  By rule, your runner is out and ejected from the ballgame.  By rule, because MC is umpire's judgement, you can NOT argue this call."  Then, I would probably signal towards the dugout and signal the OUT call.  If there is any further argument from the OC, he risks his verbal and written warnings, restriction to the dugout, and/or ejection.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe this question shows my inexperience, but, is this a situation where the umpires should get together to discuss what happened to get it right?

Someone in the other thread on the same video asked the same question.

"Getting together" is useful when there is a complex rules issue, or when the covering umpire misses something that everyone else saw (ball on the ground, umpire calls an out). For judgment calls, it's usually disrespectful: a non-calling umpire demanding a conference is looking to overrule his partner, and a calling umpire who does so needs more confidence and/or better mechanics.

That said, this umpire did get straightlined here, possibly because he's new to 4-umpire mechanics and rotated late, as the play blew up on him. The PU, up at 3B, should have had a great look at the line the runner took, and U2 should have had a great look at the launch, the forearm, and the viciousness of the hit.

  • Like 1

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

×