Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
humanbackstop19

NFHS Malicious Contact?????

Recommended Posts

This happened last night at the Iowa State High School Baseball Tournament?  Whatcha got?  Never mind that every post online called it catcher's interference, ha. 

Runner was ruled safe on the play.  Anybody see enough cause to warrant a malicious contact call?  

 

https://twitter.com/Jaxen563/status/1021569950882955266?s=03

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

I can see an attempt to avoid... but after looking at it more... I also see a deviation into the catcher. I'm probably going to dump the kid at real speed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's OBS: F2 is in the runner's path without the ball.

It's also MC, which in this instance will be INT and supersede the OBS. The runner is out and ejected, and (if there weren't 2 out already) other runners will return to their last legally touched base at TOI.

FED doesn't offer much guidance about what constitutes MC. NCAA does better: the contact above the waist, raising the elbows, no attempt to avoid contact—these all point to MC.

To my mind, this would be among the easiest calls of that particular game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

I see an attempt to avoid

The only attempt to avoid was by PU avoiding the runner.

 

The rest is MC / INT.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

The only attempt to avoid was by PU avoiding the runner.

 

The rest is MC / INT.

I've edited... I saw a step out... but then he came right back in. Only thing I can think of is that U1 was saying that F2 went into R? path... but there was no true attempt to avoid the contact here and I would have dumped the kid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With U1 rotated (4-man crew), but not third base line extended, I can see how he never saw the runner deviate back into the catcher.  I've got a forceful blow to the head though, incidental or not, MC and ejection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, noumpere said:

The only attempt to avoid was by PU avoiding the runner.

 

The rest is MC / INT.

Dude, I was wondering the same thing.  What was the plate umpire in the base path for? ha

Man, that is so MC and unless Iowa plays by different rules that kid is gone and no run.  What Maven said.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Turned out to be huge.  The scoring team won, 3-2.  

And apparently the runner was their SS and leadoff hitter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following language appeared as a FED Point of Emphasis in 2014--

Contact or a collision is considered to be malicious if:

The contact is the result of intentional excessive force;

The contact occurs close to the bag or home plate or above the waist of the receiving player; or

There was intent to injure.

Malicious contact can occur without these conditions if determined by the umpire, but these provide a starting point.

 

Carl Childress stated in the 2016 edition of his BRD that this text “must rise to the level of case book interpretation.” He went on to say that at that point in time the FED had made malicious contact a POE 15 times in the last 34 years.

Also, NFHS rule 3-3-1m and the following penalty mention malicious contact. In addition, the FED case book has several plays dealing with malicious contact in 3.3.1 Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A runner may not maliciously crash into a fielder, whether the fielder is in or out of the base path, or with or without the ball (FED rule 3-3-1m). The runner is out and ejected.

A malicious crash supersedes obstruction (rule 8-4-2e-1).

From the 2016 BRD (section 348, p. 230):

FED only.  R3. The runner is moving on the pitch. B1 squares around to attempt a suicide squeeze. The catcher jumps in front of the plate to grab the pitch and tag R3, who maliciously crashes into F2. Ruling:  The outcome of the play is not relevant even though F2 is guilty of obstruction. Since the “malicious-crash rule” supersedes the “catcher’s-obstruction rule”:  R3 is out and ejected, and B1 remains at the plate. Question:  What about the pitch, which was neither a strike nor a ball? Answer:  No pitch:  it was a dead ball—retroactively—because the batter could not hit the pitch (rule 6-1-4).

 

Please note, Mr. LRZ, I believe this play also has an answer to your conundrum posed in another thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's obstruction - point.

Time!

Thats MC!

You're out.

Your EJ.

Other runners... back to TOI bases.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F2 did indeed move to field the throw. I have him bracing for contact.

The runner saw the F2 move and adjusted INTO the contact, going high and leading with an elbow. That's not a runner bracing for an unavoidable collision.

Quick or slow, this is obvious MC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Targeting!

Hell yes, it's MC. I'm surprised there's even any debate on this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Targeting!

Hell yes, it's MC. I'm surprised there's even any debate on this. 

I would add to the debate. I see a slight inclination to slide before the throw brings the catcher in the way. What the runner intended once the slide was precluded would be judgement. Seems like he took a step in to initiate contact. But in real time who knows. 

Share this post


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

Targeting!

Good point: not that we should apply football rules, but rather that maybe we need a football philosophy here.

In football, my coordinators and my state want us to flag hits that shows certain indicators of targeting (upward thrust, launch, etc.), and they support such flags even when it turns out (in super slo mo from different angles) that the contact wasn't directly to the head/neck area. The rationale is: this is a major safety problem in football, and we want to get these hits out of the game.

I think we can say exactly the same about the play in the video. When in doubt, it's illegal. To avoid MC, I need to see that runner do more to avoid contact.

This approach imposes a burden on runners, and it's not directly supported in the rules (though it is indirectly supported, as the interps posted so far show). I'm OK with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A related issue: when a fielder drifts into a runner's path and we call something (INT, MC, etc.), coach often asks: what's my runner supposed to do? The implied question is (charitably, and to the extent that this isn't mere bitching about the call): how should I coach my runners to handle this situation?

Suggestion: we can adopt something else from football. HS football now has an illegal blindside block rule: in the open field, it is legal to block an opponent who does not see it coming only with open hands, not a shoulder hit. This rule aims to eliminate players getting "blown up" from the blindside (obviously a safety provision).

Why not coach runners similarly? Yes, a fielder might move into your path. That does not license you to throw a forearm at their head. Instead, runners have 2 options: (1) with time, avoid the contact; (2) with no time, extend open hands to absorb the contact. Anyone who can raise an elbow can raise open hands.

Football has a slogan for coaching legal blindside blocks: "open field = open hands." Maybe something similarly catchy will take hold in baseball.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

A related issue: when a fielder drifts into a runner's path and we call something (INT, MC, etc.), coach often asks: what's my runner supposed to do? The implied question is (charitably, and to the extent that this isn't mere bitching about the call): how should I coach my runners to handle this situation?

Suggestion: we can adopt something else from football. HS football now has an illegal blindside block rule: in the open field, it is legal to block an opponent who does not see it coming only with open hands, not a shoulder hit. This rule aims to eliminate players getting "blown up" from the blindside (obviously a safety provision).

Why not coach runners similarly? Yes, a fielder might move into your path. That does not license you to throw a forearm at their head. Instead, runners have 2 options: (1) with time, avoid the contact; (2) with no time, extend open hands to absorb the contact. Anyone who can raise an elbow can raise open hands.

Football has a slogan for coaching legal blindside blocks: "open field = open hands." Maybe something similarly catchy will take hold in baseball.

I like it. Some guidance will be helpful.

"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball" 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 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.

At least IRL, I disagree -- far too many write it off as "just baseball" or "they just got in the way" -- and MC is NOT called nearly as often as it should be.

Share this post


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

far too many write it off as "just baseball" or "they just got in the way" -- and MC is NOT called nearly as often as it should be.

Completely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by humanbackstop19
Additional information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

That's obstruction - point.

Time!

Thats MC!

You're out.

Your EJ.

Other runners... back to TOI bases.

 

THIS ^^^^^^^ X 1,000!  

 

(Except no Time after pointing and saying that's Obstruction.  Time after MC.)

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

×