Leaderboard

Because this doesn't qualify as malicious contact. IF you want to lump pushing, shoving, throwing punches, etc. under malicious contact, then there is no point of having the fight rules. Malicious contact is grouped with the interference rule... we can't call interference during a dead ball since there is no play to be interfered with. That is why @grayhawk is correct with his ruling.

The umpires were incorrect for ejecting for MC. This should have been an unsportsmanlike ejection for fighting. Eject R1 and enter a substitute.

Derek- thank you very much for reaching out and resolving the concerns. I really appreciate your efforts!

NFHS did define MC in it's 2014 Rules Interpretations. Why they never put it in the rule book, nobody knows. 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.

We call it a ground rule double but it's really a book rule, called "automatic" in the OBR scorekeeping rules, and this thread will enlighten you:

If it will be of help, California has a definition of malicious contact: Malicious contact is violent, avoidable contact between two opposing players. It often occurs when a runner collides with a fielder in an effort to dislodge possession of the ball. Malicious contact can also occur when a fielder unnecessarily applies a hard tag to a runner. Intent and play situation must be a consideration in determining malicious contact. Hard contact is not, in itself, malicious contact. From what I understand, California has submitted a definition to the NFHS rules committee on numerous occasions without success.

I don't know which I have (I didn't know it had changed). I bought mine Sep'25 from GD. Looks like SKU is "ALL-SC900UMP-S" (so Sand?). I've had none of the issue @SeeingEyeDog mentions. I find it grippy to the touch (and marks up so doesn't look great - though Im imagine I/us are the only ones that would notice). After small adjustment period (very small, maybe came off funny 1-2 times) it works fine with the Umplife harness.

I do not have either of these skull caps...however, the 6 guys in my association who have them that I have spoken to, all have the SAND finish version which they all use with the UmpLife harness. To a man, they have all said that the sand finish is much more slick than using just a wool cap and that it took several uses and tightening of the harness to get it to where it was overcoming the smoothness of the skull cap and staying in place. One even went so far as to say he used a drill with a wire brush and roughed up the back of the skull cap slightly to provide more grip to the harness. The decision by All-Star to move from the SAND finish to the smooth matte finish, would seem based on the feedback I have received to be a step in the WRONG direction on this. (No offense to Stan Jurga and all the fine, hardworking people at All-Star Sports...I still love your stuff.) ~Dawg

It took me a few games to get used to them, but I prefer them in every way over the T hooks (rust, snags) of my first CP and the plastic buckles (lower profile, more resilient) of my Cobalt.