Collision at the plate - video

[GreyhoundAggie]

Thanks Fittske. That explanation helps a lot.

[Fittske24]

Fittske's video it TOTALLY different than the OP ....

 

That R3 lowers his shoulder clearly here ....

It's not totally different there is only one element that makes it different...... And it is.....if the contact is avoidable. There are many that will look at these two videos and see the same end result.

[Fittske24]

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.

[UmpJM]

Greyhound,

 

JM,

 

The video Fittske posted is from an NCAA training, and they would have fragrant collision and the catcher did not have possession of the ball. So how is that any different?

 

That's certainly a fair question.

 

The narrator of the NCAA video clearly said this would be properly ruled a "flagrant collision" under the NCAA rule introduced in the 2011-12 NCAA rule book.

 

To me, that's an insupportable statement because the rule clearly stipulated that a "necessary condition" for the rule to be applied is that the fielder must clearly be in possession of the ball.

 

When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is in possession of the ball,...

 

Since in the video Fittske posted, the fielder was clearly NOT in possession of the ball, the rule does not apply. But, for the purpose of inquiry, let's just say the NCAA was a little sloppy in their writing and meant to say something like "...whether the fielder is in possession of the ball or not...", because they're really trying to minimize the chance of very violent collisions.

 

To me, there are a number of very material differences between the play in the NCAA video and the video in the OP. Namely, ...

 

1. In the NCAA video, the F2 was "in the runner's path" pretty much the entire time the R3 was advancing from 3B toward the plate. In the OP video, on the other hand, the F2 moved into the runner's path at the last second. Whether or not he was required to by rule, the NCAA runner had "opportunity" to avoid the collision, while in the OP video, I would argue the runner did not.

 

2. In the NCAA video, the runner never "slows down" and attempts to go "through" the F2, delivering a "forearm shiver" which knocks the catcher flat and manages to reach the plate which is a good 10-15' beyond the point of the collision. In the OP video, the runner starts to slow down and protect himself  by drawing his arms inward to his chest and never gets "past" the catcher. At the end of the collision, the runner ends up on his feet still shy of home plate, even though the initial point of collision is within the RH batter's box.

 

3. In the NCAA video, the catcher was knocked unconscious, while in the OP video neither player suffered any apparent injury (other than to their "feelings"). Not to suggest that the severity of injury should come into play in making the ruling, but rather that it can be ex post facto evidence of the flagrant/non-flagrant nature of the collision.

 

So, even if you were to apply the NCAA standard, AND disregard the "clear possession of the ball" requirement, there is no way the OP is MC/FC.

 

The narrator's assertion that the play in the NCAA video is representative of a violation of the NCAA Flagrant Contact rule baffles me; it would be like holding a runner to the constraints of the FPSR when he wasn't forced.

 

JM

[BigSimonia]

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. 

[BigSimonia]

BigSimonia,

 

Since the F2 was the one who initiated the contact, without the slightest regard for the runner's safety, why aren't you dumping him?

 

JM

You're looking at the same video I am and you say F2 initiated the contact?  That's like saying a pedestrian crossing the intersection initated contact with a truck.  This is all fine and dandy in MLB but in FED it's MC, for all the reasons I gave before

[Mike Prince]

So the real question here is if UmpJM is the PU and BigSimonia is the BU, is BigSimonia trying to talk to UmpJM after the play to tell him he has MC? 

[scrounge]

BigSimonia,

 

Since the F2 was the one who initiated the contact, without the slightest regard for the runner's safety, why aren't you dumping him?

 

JM

You're looking at the same video I am and you say F2 initiated the contact?  That's like saying a pedestrian crossing the intersection initated contact with a truck.  This is all fine and dandy in MLB but in FED it's MC, for all the reasons I gave before

 

 

Wha? Well, if a pedestrian jumps in front of a truck at the last second, yes - it isn't the truck's fault. The runner is running on a clear path behind F2 and at the very last moment, bam - there's a fielder jumping in front of him with absolutely no ability to react or avoid or do anything other than let inertia play out. And you're blaming the runner?

[UmpJM]

BigSimonia,

 

What a ridiculous argument.

 

If the truck has the "right of way" (as the runner did in the OP) and the pedestrian moves into its path, OF COURSE the pedestrian "caused" the collision.

 

ALL the reasons you gave before?!?! YGTBSM!

 

The ONLY "reason" (using the word very loosely) you have given is some cockamamie nonsense about the runner "deliberately failing to avoid the collision" which,

 

1. he is under no obligation to do in this situation, by rule

 

2. he had no opportunity to do in this situation since the catcher moved into his path at the last second, though the runner did do a good job of minimizing the force of the collision.

 

We may very well be looking at different videos.

 

JM

[bam]

We may very well be looking at different videos.

 

JM

Oh yeah.  That's got to be it.  

[BigSimonia]

BigSimonia,

 

What a ridiculous argument.

 

If the truck has the "right of way" (as the runner did in the OP) and the pedestrian moves into its path, OF COURSE the pedestrian "caused" the collision.

 

ALL the reasons you gave before?!?! YGTBSM!

 

The ONLY "reason" (using the word very loosely) you have given is some cockamamie nonsense about the runner "deliberately failing to avoid the collision" which,

 

1. he is under no obligation to do in this situation, by rule

 

2. he had no opportunity to do in this situation since the catcher moved into his path at the last second, though the runner did do a good job of minimizing the force of the collision.

 

We may very well be looking at different videos.

 

JM

R1 rounds third headed for home - he's clearly in foul territory.  F2 is in fair territory and F1 taks a path directly toward F2 in fair territory.   F2 doesn't "move into his path at the last second" - that's ridiculous.  The way FED wants this to play out is if F1 is obstructing, R1 is to give it up and he'll be awarded home on the obstruction - if R1 chooses instead to plow into the obstructing F2, the OBS is superceded and MC is invoked.  You can use whatver insults you want (always the sign of a well-thought-out argument) but you're wrong on the merits (and apparently TASO agrees with me). Even at the higher level NCAA this is recognized as flagrant contact based on safety concerns.

[JaxRolo]

R1 rounds third headed for home - he's clearly in foul territory.  F2 is in fair territory and F1 taks a path directly toward F2 in fair territory.   F2 doesn't "move into his path at the last second" - that's ridiculous.  The way FED wants this to play out is if F1 is obstructing, R1 is to give it up and he'll be awarded home on the obstruction - if R1 chooses instead to plow into the obstructing F2, the OBS is superceded and MC is invoked.  You can use whatver insults you want (always the sign of a well-thought-out argument) but you're wrong on the merits (and apparently TASO agrees with me). Even at the higher level NCAA this is recognized as flagrant contact based on safety concerns.

 

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Mike Prince]

And he used TASO's interpretation as a justification for it!

 

Funny how "Even at the higher level NCAA this is recognized as flagrant contact based on safety concerns" and Fittske (an NCAA umpire) has already said no MC based on his judgement.

[BigSimonia]

R1 rounds third headed for home - he's clearly in foul territory.  F2 is in fair territory and F1 taks a path directly toward F2 in fair territory.   F2 doesn't "move into his path at the last second" - that's ridiculous.  The way FED wants this to play out is if F1 is obstructing, R1 is to give it up and he'll be awarded home on the obstruction - if R1 chooses instead to plow into the obstructing F2, the OBS is superceded and MC is invoked.  You can use whatver insults you want (always the sign of a well-thought-out argument) but you're wrong on the merits (and apparently TASO agrees with me). Even at the higher level NCAA this is recognized as flagrant contact based on safety concerns.

 

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment abd cal it a day

[UmpJM]

Jax,

 

You could have just said he was wrong.... 

 

JM

[BretMan]

I can find only one FED case play that involves an off-line throw pulling a fielder into the path of an otherwise legally advancing runner.

 

8.3.2 SITUATION K:

F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges towards the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball...while the runner is short of (the) base.

RULING: Obstruction.

 

Wonder why this runner wasn't called for malicious contact?

 

Because it's not...

[UmpJM]

BigSimonia,

 

R1 rounds third headed for home - he's clearly in foul territory.  F2 is in fair territory and F1 taks a path directly toward F2 in fair territory.   F2 doesn't "move into his path at the last second" - that's ridiculous.  ...

 

Thou beslubbering reeling-ripe mammet, I did NOT insult you before - I simply said your argument was ridiculous, and explained why. (here, I DID insult you, but only for illustrative purposes. See the difference?)

 

Your most recent post pretty much settles it. We are clearly not looking at the same video in the OP.

 

JM

[Thunderheads]

Just because TASO utilizes a certain rule in specfic situations (the one that greyhound is stating) does NOT mean it proper, or correct according to FED rules.

 

It astounds me that people here with AMAZING RULES knowledge AND rules interpretation are chiming in with abundant redundancy...... and there is STILL people on here wanting to argue?

   

[scrounge]

Just because TASO utilizes a certain rule in specfic situations (the one that greyhound is stating) does NOT mean it proper, or correct according to FED rules.

 

It astounds me that people here with AMAZING RULES knowledge AND rules interpretation are chiming in with abundant redundancy...... and there is STILL people on here wanting to argue?

   

 

 

And without saying anyone is lying or anything, I'd like a more definitive source saying this is the TASO interpretation before even saying that. Did Jay actually see this video or respond to a description of the video?

[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.

[JaxRolo]

Just because TASO utilizes a certain rule in specfic situations (the one that greyhound is stating) does NOT mean it proper, or correct according to FED rules.

 

It astounds me that people here with AMAZING RULES knowledge AND rules interpretation are chiming in with abundant redundancy...... and there is STILL people on here wanting to argue?

   

 

Amen to that!!!

[UmpJM]

Greyhound,

 

FWIW, I believe you.

 

My opinion is that is a very poor interpretation.

 

JM

[LMSANS]

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.

[JaxRolo]

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.

 

Ok we all agree that TASO is wrong.

 

I'm done with this one! You can lead a horse to water.....

[scrounge]

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.