Malicious contact?

[dddunn3d]

 

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.

11U play by Fed Rules where you work?

[johnnyg08]

Where's the definition of Malicious Contact in the Fed Book?  

[Jocko]

 

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.11U play by Fed Rules where you work?My tourneys are Fed based rules. 99% of my games are Fed.

[johnnyg08]

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.

 

 

Let's say it was an accident.  If there's any doubt in your mind dump the kid now and everybody on the field knows that you can't truck the catcher.  I see too many umpire puss out on making the tough call w/ a "warning" (a warning not listed in the rule book) giving a player a free shot.  

 

I agree with others on here in that you can't be a black & white rule book umpire either.  But again, this is a safety rule.  In FED you can err on the side of safety.

[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.

11U play by Fed Rules where you work?

 

Yep, for the most part all the youth organizations around here use Fed rules, sometimes with local modifications. It makes it easy - only one rule set to know in-depth. The men's adult/senior league uses OBR with Fed FPSR, but that's about it.

[johnnyg08]

From the BRD.  The most language I could find regarding MC.

 

 

341 INTERFERENCE BY: RUNNER: MALICIOUS CONTACT / COLLISION: DEFINITION / PENALTY

FED: POE 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2007: 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. The ball is immediately dead. (3-3-1n) PENALTY: The runner is out and

ejected. (3-3-1n Pen; 3.3.1w through cc)  381. ALSO: Umpires have the “latitude†to call malicious contact on any collision they witness: “That judgment should not be removed by rule but bolstered by education, experience, and field mechanics / location.†The umpire might consider if: the contact results from “intentional excessive forceâ€; or there is intent to injure.†(POE 2006)

 

Note 321: The POE goes on to say that if INTENTIONAL EXCESSIVE FORCE or INTENT TO INJURE is not present, the umpire may still penalize for a malicious crash. Indeed, those two criteria merely provide a “starting point.†Only rarely does THE BRDTM include POE in the rules discussion, but you will agree that the FED language in POE 2006 must rise to the level of case book interpretation. It is also important to point out that malicious contact has been a FED POE 13 times in the last 30 years. You would think coaches, players – and umpires – would finally learn how to get it right.

382. ALSO: A malicious crash supersedes obstruction. (8-4-2e-1)

 383. ALSO: If a runner crosses the plate before another runner causes malicious contact, the run counts. Other runners remain TOI.

(3-3-1n Pen; 2.21.1b) 

 

 

384. ALSO: OFF INTERP 318-341: RUMBLE: Umpires should not use the force of the crash as the criterion for judging malicious contact: “The severity of the contact is not a gauge for determining malicious contact, because there are times ... when the contact is unavoidable.â€

(News #3, 3/93)