Malicious contact?

[Bumps]

HS JV game. To start, more then likely a HTBT sitch. Skip to the end part, R3 and R2 standing on 3rd. Neither player tagged, R3 takes off for home, 3B throws home, catcher standing with ball, R3 has enough time to avoid contact, but runs into catcher, with hands up. I truly believe it was a defensive mechanism, but dumped him for not avoiding contact. Thoughts?

[johnnyg08]

It's a safety rule.  You can always err on the side of safety.  

 

I'm not as concerned w/ how you ruled but how did you handle the situation when the coach came out?

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Failing to avoid contact, IMHO, is not an ejectable offense. If you truly believed it was "a defensive mechanism", then it wasn't malicious. Malicious contact is more likely going to involve a shoulder, forearm, or head, used as a battering ram. This certainly was a HTBT, but I think you may have ejected a little hastily.

[Bumps]

Coach did not come down at that time. Came to me between innings to to ask what I had and told him I did not think the kid was trying to hurt the catcher but he did have time to avoid contact. Coach thanked me and all moved on.

[Bumps]

Pete,

It is FED rules and the player is supposed to avoid contact? In FED it was either considered obstruction, which it definitely was not or malicious contact. I do not really like the term either, but not sure what else to call it in FED rules.

[Replacematt]

Coach did not come down at that time. Came to me between innings to to ask what I had and told him I did not think the kid was trying to hurt the catcher but he did have time to avoid contact. Coach thanked me and all moved on.

 

Merely making avoidable contact is not an ejectable offense.

[Jocko]

Pete,It is FED rules and the player is supposed to avoid contact? In FED it was either considered obstruction, which it definitely was not or malicious contact. I do not really like the term either, but not sure what else to call it in FED rules.

Not all contact is malicious. Not all AVOIDABLE contact is malicious. The rule says that if he tries to use contact to injure or dislodge the ball (paraphrased, not verbatim), THEN it's malicious. I'm not in disagreement with your call, just saying that somtimes contact is just contact.

[UMP45]

Pete,

It is FED rules and the player is supposed to avoid contact? In FED it was either considered obstruction, which it definitely was not or malicious contact. I do not really like the term either, but not sure what else to call it in FED rules.

You can't say definitely OBS because he didn't tell us the status of the ball. Also how "high" were his hands? IMO HTBT.

[UMP45]

Pete,

It is FED rules and the player is supposed to avoid contact? In FED it was either considered obstruction, which it definitely was not or malicious contact. I do not really like the term either, but not sure what else to call it in FED rules.

Was the catcher waiting with ball?

Bumps was the catcher waiting with the ball?

[Bumps]

Ump45,

Hands were chest high and came up a few step before the contact. CATCHER WAS WAITING WITHT THE BALL.

Between the amount of time, I believe the runner had to avoid contact and the hands coming up, I felt I had no choice given the circumstances. BU agreed with the call and he is a Senior member of the Association.

[Replacematt]

Ump45,

Hands were chest high and came up a few step before the contact. CATCHER WAS WAITING WITHT THE BALL.

Between the amount of time, I believe the runner had to avoid contact and the hands coming up, I felt I had no choice given the circumstances. BU agreed with the call and he is a Senior member of the Association.

 

Given your own description, I would have an out, but no ejection.

[UMP45]

I've got an out and ejection also. Jocko you said malicious is defined as intent to injure and/or dislodge the ball. So the runner ran into the catcher because he couldn't slow down? Or just for the hell of it? I know there can be train wrecks but the way Bumps described what happened I would have to agree with him.

[Bumps]

Here was my reasoning. I had catcher with the ball, again waiting. Runner had time to avoid, but not only did he not avoid, he brought hands up to chest high. Not mentioned previously, but catcher did fall and land on his @$$, not flying back, but was taken down.

While this should have nothing to do with it, the offensive team was also up, 15 - 1. Really no reason for it.

As a new guy to the Association and my first plate game, the last thing I wanted was this type of situation.

[scrounge]

Here was my reasoning. I had catcher with the ball, again waiting. Runner had time to avoid, but not only did he not avoid, he brought hands up to chest high. Not mentioned previously, but catcher did fall and land on his @$$, not flying back, but was taken down.

While this should have nothing to do with it, the offensive team was also up, 15 - 1. Really no reason for it.

As a new guy to the Association and my first plate game, the last thing I wanted was this type of situation.

 

 

Sounds like you handled it just fine

[Replacematt]

I've got an out and ejection also. Jocko you said malicious is defined as intent to injure and/or dislodge the ball. So the runner ran into the catcher because he couldn't slow down? Or just for the hell of it? I know there can be train wrecks but the way Bumps described what happened I would have to agree with him.

Given that he said it looked like a defensive mechanism, it's not intent to dislodge, and he said he didn't judge intent to injure.

 

This is illegal contact, but not malicious, as I'm seeing it.

[scrounge]

I've got an out and ejection also. Jocko you said malicious is defined as intent to injure and/or dislodge the ball. So the runner ran into the catcher because he couldn't slow down? Or just for the hell of it? I know there can be train wrecks but the way Bumps described what happened I would have to agree with him.

Given that he said it looked like a defensive mechanism, it's not intent to dislodge, and he said he didn't judge intent to injure.

 

This is illegal contact, but not malicious, as I'm seeing it.

 

Definitely could go either way, depending on just how it happened. I've seen and called it both ways. In a 11U game, had a 1B just waiting for the ball while the B/R just kept on going. I didn't think it was malicious but just a kid who spaced out and didn't know much better than to keep running. Knocked the 1B back a bit and he dropped the ball. Partner called him safe but I (coming up on the line) called him out for intentional contact (8-4-2c). So I can see a basis for no ejection - but if he truly had plenty of time to stop and the players are old enough to know better, I'd prob lean more to MC.

[mrumpiresir]

Did the runner make any effort to avoid the contact?   The book doesn't say contact is illegal, but of course illegal contact is to be penalized.  Contact will happen, but the book says the runner must attempt to avoid contact.

[Bumps]

There was ABSOLUTELY NO ATTEMPT to avoid contact. Runner saw contact coming and brought arms up chest high. There were numerous steps prior to contact, no deviation of running path, just arms up and whamo.

[Replacematt]

Was there intent to dislodge the ball?

[mrumpiresir]

There was ABSOLUTELY NO ATTEMPT to avoid contact. Runner saw contact coming and brought arms up chest high. There were numerous steps prior to contact, no deviation of running path, just arms up and whamo.

So he had a chance to avoid contact and made no attempt to avoid.  As stated earlier, Fed has a number of rules for safety purposes.  An ejection here is appropriate.

[Bumps]

Hard to say what the runner was thinking, having said that, do I think there was intent to injure, no. To dislodge, I could make a case either way. I saw the arms come up, saw no attempt to avoid contact, and ran right into catcher, catcher fell backwards. Right now, if I had to do it over again, I would make the same call.

I do appreciate talking though the play. I may be wrong, I will be wrong again at some point, but just felt at the time and the more I talk through this, that this was the right call.

[Jocko]

The devil is in the details. Sounds to me like the runner trucked the catcher. I never disagreed with you originally, and now I'm openly agreeing with you. Now that I know F2 wound up on his derrier as a result of the contact, I'm leaning toward the camp of attempting to dislodge. Righteous call.

[johnnyg08]

Esp in FED ball, never regret erring on the side of safety.

[cyclonehokiece]

Sounds like the kid needed to go.  When a kid knocks someone on their rear end when they had time to at least slow before contact or avoid, they are done.

[Replacematt]

 

To dislodge, I could make a case either way. I saw the arms come up, saw no attempt to avoid contact, and ran right into catcher, catcher fell backwards.

This is the important part. A. Knowing what you saw is paramount. B. Knowing how what you saw fits into the framework of rules is necessary, and even more so in the case of an ejection.

The reason I always try to get umpires to think in collisions (FED-wise) is because there are too many that try to interpret situations within a fan's or player's perspective. There are too many umpires that either want to toss on any contact, because they think all contact is illegal, or they don't want to toss on anything but the most egregious contact, because they feel that's how baseball should be played. Knowing what constitutes legal contact and the various forms of illegal contact, and how to administer appropriate penalties, is difficult for many people.