Collision at the plate - video

[Fittske24]

This has been an exciting discussion fellows, unless there is new information to add, I think it is time to agree to disagree.  Way too much personal jabs going on.  This is the warning.

Did you write it on your line-up cards? :)

[Replacematt]

 

I've got MC, R1 out and no run scores (MC occured before touching the plate - if it was in fact touched at all). 

 

MC does NOT require intent to injure.  If FED wanted it to only be applied in an intentional situation, it could have easily said so. 

 

Here is California's legal definition of "malice", which, while I understand is not directly applicable to baseball in general or FED in particular, is still a pretty good statement of what conduct falls within the definition of "malice":

 

"Malice" means that the person acted with intent to cause injury or that the person's conduct was despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the rights or safety of another. A person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences."

 

Given that the whole basis of the "malicious contact" rule in FED is to protect the players from injury; that it was pretty apparent to R1 and everyone else in the park that there was clearly possible dangerous consequences of his contact with F2; and R1 deliberatly failed to avoid those consequences, I've got a clear case of MC.

 

(And my daughter is a softball catcher for a high school team)

 

So, it requires intent, according to that definition (highlighting mine.)

 

R1 didn't deliberately do ###### in this video before the collision. F2 moved into his path.

He deliberately failed to avoid  Read the whole sentence before just picking out words here and there. 

 

Please, pot...You claim intent isn't necessary, then used an interpretation that states specifically that it is, and further, highlight where the runner (IYIJ) committed an intentional act.

[KLAH316]

       

[mrumpiresir]

No rule states that Runners are required to avoid contact.  It says the runner must attempt to avoid contact.  In the video the runner had a clear path to the plate and F2 moved into his path at the last moment.  What rule did the runner violate? The statement that he deliberately failed to avoid contact is nonsense and means nothing.  This is not MC.

 

Why do some umpires insist that any contact is MC?  

[Forest Ump]

Be careful with your terminology Greyhound. There's no MC in NCAA baseball. That term is not used. There is a collision rule but it has different criteria for enforcing.

Yes the NCAA does use the word "malicious" to define a type of contact between opposing players. See the collision rule I posted above.

Yep. I read that from your post. I appreciate you posting that too. It was a very good dissection of the collision rule as it pertained to the video. I should have said to Greyhound that the NCAA does not have a MC rule like HS does.

[GreyhoundAggie]

Jay saw the video. I sent it to him. I wanted to confirm how this would be enforced for our state organization.

 

That was his response.

 

Thanks, just wanted to clarify. Needless to say, I disagree with Jay. But if you're in his jurisdiction, then you call it that way.

When in Rome eh?

 

I agree that not all contact is Malicious Contact. There are plenty of trainwrecks at 1st base and other bases, and definitely home plate.

[mstaylor]

Wow, I just read all 6 pages and all that had to happen was read the spoiler, it was bang on. Taso has always been a very respected organization but they are just flat wrong and it is going to lead to a whole generation of Texas umpires calling MC incorrectly. The problem is they have stated what they want and so TASO members are stuck with it. Aggie, I suggest in the future you understand how the rest of the country calls it and add that Texas is odd man out. Don't try to justify TASO's ruling as correct because it isn't. 

[basejester]

Assuming trainwreck on the actual collision, could someone comment on why 0:38 isn't obstruction?  It looks pretty blatant to me.

[umpstu]

No way I'd call MC on that. Because it's not.

 

JM

My eyes may be wrong, I am an umpire, but does the ball seem to change it's path at the time of the collision? Did the ball deflect off of the top of the catcher's mitt? If so, I got nothing. The catcher's reaching for the ball, is it any different than the 1b reaching up the line for a ball and the runner colliding with him?

 

The catcher is obviously in the act of fielding the throw. I mean he is reaching for it and the play is covered in the case book, page 73, rule 8, 8.3.2, situation I. I got nothing.

[umpstu]

FED doesn't allow you to block the basepath if you are in the process of fielding the ball. You must have possession and control of the ball in FED.  

Not true. Check the case book. It specifically addresses that play.

[UmpJM]

Assuming trainwreck on the actual collision, could someone comment on why 0:38 isn't obstruction?  It looks pretty blatant to me.

Basejester,

 

Is the runner attempting to advance or retreat on the basepath at that point?

 

JM

[UmpJM]

umpstu,

 

No way I'd call MC on that. Because it's not.

 

JM

My eyes may be wrong, I am an umpire, but does the ball seem to change it's path at the time of the collision? Did the ball deflect off of the top of the catcher's mitt? If so, I got nothing. The catcher's reaching for the ball, is it any different than the 1b reaching up the line for a ball and the runner colliding with him?

 

The catcher is obviously in the act of fielding the throw. I mean he is reaching for it and the play is covered in the case book, page 73, rule 8, 8.3.2, situation I. I got nothing.

 

I have no idea what your point is.

 

1. Your post has nothing to do with my post regarding MC that you quoted in your reply.

 

2. What would the ball changing direction at the time of the collision have to do with...anything?

 

3. There is no "act of fielding" exception with regard to obstruction in FED.

 

4. The ruling in the FED case play you cite is "Obstruction".

 

What, on earth, is your point or question as the case may be? Do tell.

 

JM

[basejester]

Assuming trainwreck on the actual collision, could someone comment on why 0:38 isn't obstruction?  It looks pretty blatant to me.

Basejester,

 

Is the runner attempting to advance or retreat on the basepath at that point?

 

JM

Thanks for the reply.  I'm seeing your thought process.

 

I was judging at attempt by the runner to advance to home from 32-38 (and yes, stopping about there).  The catcher's shove about 37 doesn't seem like part of attempt to catch the ball.   Are we calling that self-defense?   Does that make it not obstruction? 

[UmpJM]

basejester,

 

I think you could likely support an obstruction call on the shove.

 

JM

[umpstu]

umpstu,

 

 

No way I'd call MC on that. Because it's not.

 

JM

My eyes may be wrong, I am an umpire, but does the ball seem to change it's path at the time of the collision? Did the ball deflect off of the top of the catcher's mitt? If so, I got nothing. The catcher's reaching for the ball, is it any different than the 1b reaching up the line for a ball and the runner colliding with him?

 

The catcher is obviously in the act of fielding the throw. I mean he is reaching for it and the play is covered in the case book, page 73, rule 8, 8.3.2, situation I. I got nothing.

 

I have no idea what your point is.

 

1. Your post has nothing to do with my post regarding MC that you quoted in your reply.

 

2. What would the ball changing direction at the time of the collision have to do with...anything?

 

3. There is no "act of fielding" exception with regard to obstruction in FED.

 

4. The ruling in the FED case play you cite is "Obstruction".

 

What, on earth, is your point or question as the case may be? Do tell.

 

JM

Probably picked the wrong spot to say something, my bad on that. I don't have anything on this play. To me it looks like the runner is trying to brace himself on this play and not wanting to knock the catcher into la la land.

 

Maybe I'm reading the casebook wrongly, it does say, "F2 cannot be in be in the baseline without the ball if it is not in motion and a probable play is not going to occur." The ball is in motion and a probable play is going to occur during this play.

 

Wasn't arguing with you about this play. Agree with the MC comments on your part 100 percent. My apologies if I came across differently.

[UmpJM]

stu,

 

Which case play? Never mind, got it.

 

That wording is confusing - particularly in light of the fact that they give the ruling as "Obstruction" and that 8.3.2C says he can't be in the basepath without "the ball in his possession".

 

JM

[umpstu]

stu,

 

Which case play?

 

JM

Page 73, 8.3.2 situation I

[bleacher_bum]

So let me see if I have this right....

Since we cannot tell the runners they MUST slide (for obvious reasons), TASO's interpretation will be automatic MC if they dont.  So, according to TASO, slide or HOPE there is no contact?  Basically TASO is interpreting rules to the point that is MAKING the player slide.  For Safety...

WOW

 

BTW,  I loved the Billy Madison interjection.

[zm1283]

I can't believe some of the justifications I've heard in this thread for making up rules, including this interpreter from TASO.  GreyHound and the rest of the people arguing for MC are just flat wrong and are making up rules to suit their fancy.  F2 moves into the runner's path at the last second and causes the contact.  TASO can say what it wants, but to say that a runner must slide to avoid contact is just not true.  

[UmpJM]

zm,

 

I don't think greyhound or our other colleagues from Texas are the ones making up rules.

 

TASO has issued an interp (which may or may not have been explained correctly) and they are simply following it.

 

While I agree that "it's simply not true" under FED rules, it may very well be true in Texas. Or not.

 

JM

[zm1283]

zm,

 

I don't think greyhound or our other colleagues from Texas are the ones making up rules.

 

TASO has issued an interp (which may or may not have been explained correctly) and they are simply following it.

 

While I agree that "it's simply not true" under FED rules, it may very well be true in Texas. Or not.

 

JM

 

Yeah, after reading my post again, I agree.  If they are simply following TASO's lead here, they aren't the ones making up rules, TASO is making them up.  I would bring it up to the interpreter cited in this thread if I worked in Texas and try to get him to explain their justification for this mess.  

[GreyhoundAggie]

I am following the lead of TASO as instructed at our state meeting, regional clinics, and by email from the state interpreter.

 

Right or wrong, that is how TASO wants in enforced.

 

Make of it what you will