What You Got?

[mhoffman]

I literally just saw this on youtube and said to myself, would you classify at the 11 sec mark of this video, MC?

 

 

 

Personally I saw the runner in the last frame take that step towards the fielder (even if he didnt) and then crush the fielder.  I would have had him chalked up and ejected from game but that is my personal feelings.  I don't care if its state finals, I am there to enforce the rules that have been given to me by the NFHS and NJSIAA.

 

What is everybody thoughts on this?

[Dash Riprock]

Certainly INT; I can't tell if the C is M.

[maven]

It looks like a runner who thinks he's entitled to the baseline, which is wrong, slightly dumb, but not necessarily malicious.

I'd need better video for a more decisive ruling.

[mhoffman]

i agree being there live would certainly help but if it was a banger at the bag where runner and first base come up the line from bad throw meet then sometimes you just chalk it up to players, playing baseball and you make the call but this is a kid 1. not knowing rules 2. knowing the first baseman is camping the ball 3. trying to destroy the first baseman because he doesn't know the rules.  But as always thanks for the feed back and we all see things different in these cases but we are all learning every time we are out there....because if we are "perfect" then God bless you! haha

 

Carry on

[Replacematt]

i agree being there live would certainly help but if it was a banger at the bag where runner and first base come up the line from bad throw meet then sometimes you just chalk it up to players, playing baseball and you make the call but this is a kid 1. not knowing rules 2. knowing the first baseman is camping the ball 3. trying to destroy the first baseman because he doesn't know the rules.  But as always thanks for the feed back and we all see things different in these cases but we are all learning every time we are out there....because if we are "perfect" then God bless you! haha

 

Carry on

The issue is that we cannot conclude #3 from the video.

[Jocko]

I definitely have INT. Runners return to TOP base. But doubt I'd call MC

Upon further video study and freeze frame....BR is EJd for MC

[mhoffman]

Unfortunately it can go both ways at full speed and umpires might be relaxing with 2 outs and a routine pop up to a state finalists first basemen they probably said wow about that collision and we are actually getting to see replays while they get one shot at it. Honestly though I don't know what they even called I mean I hope interference to start, even though the catch was made some how.

Either way it can be a learning tool for any level umpire, never assume anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

The thing is, this contact is SO avoidable.  Seems like he lowered the shoulder too.  With the benefit of a couple of looks on a poor quality video, I have MC.

[Replacematt]

I definitely have INT. Runners return to TOP base. But doubt I'd call MC

Upon further video study and freeze frame....BR is EJd for MCScreenshot_2014-06-18-18-47-04-1.png

 

I think that pic is misleading.

[maven]

The thing is, this contact is SO avoidable.  Seems like he lowered the shoulder too.  With the benefit of a couple of looks on a poor quality video, I have MC.

 

For me, avoidable + lowered shoulder alone add up only to a runner who mistakenly thought he was entitled to the baseline. So I agree that the runner intended to initiate contact, probably expecting to draw an obstruction call. Still doesn't seem malicious or intended to injure or punish the opponent, though I wouldn't put money on it based on that video.

 

If I were evaluating the umpires and my only evidence were this video and their accounts, I could probably support either call (MC or no MC). I would NOT support a no call: this has to be at least INT.

[mjr_2013]

I tried watching the video a couple times and it just made me dizzy. It's tough to say anything with such a moving camera.

[basejester]

Toss him.

[grayhawk]

 

The thing is, this contact is SO avoidable.  Seems like he lowered the shoulder too.  With the benefit of a couple of looks on a poor quality video, I have MC.

 

For me, avoidable + lowered shoulder alone add up only to a runner who mistakenly thought he was entitled to the baseline. So I agree that the runner intended to initiate contact, probably expecting to draw an obstruction call. Still doesn't seem malicious or intended to injure or punish the opponent, though I wouldn't put money on it based on that video.

 

If I were evaluating the umpires and my only evidence were this video and their accounts, I could probably support either call (MC or no MC). I would NOT support a no call: this has to be at least INT.

 

 

From the CIF Southern Section Preview for 2013-2014:

 

 

The NFHS is concerned that this rule is not being consistently enforced. In determining whether contact is malicious, the following should be considered. (1) Did the runner have a chance to avoid the contact. If the ball arrives ahead of the runner, the umpire must decide if the runner had a chance to avoid contact. If contact occurs, it could be called an illegal slide or malicious contact. This is umpire judgment.  (2) Was the contact the result of excessive force? The intentional lowering of a shoulder into a defensive player, usually the catcher, would be considered excessive force, and thus, malicious contact. A player who loses his balance then collides with the catcher or fielder may be guilty of an illegal slide but not necessarily malicious contact. Sometimes, a runner will put up his arms to protect himself against a collision with a fielder or a catcher. In this case, even if a fielder or catcher is knocked off his feet, it would be an illegal slide, but it may not necessarily be malicious contact. These are judgment calls for the umpire and they require that the umpire take a moment to process not only what he sees, but the intent of the runner. (3) Did the contact occur above the waist of the receiving player? Home plate and the bases are on the ground. A runner who makes intentional contact above the waist is quite likely not attempting to reach the plate or base.  (4) Was there intent to injure? The throwing of an elbow or the intentional lowering of a shoulder would be an example of an intent to injure. Remember, that malicious contact supersedes obstruction. So, a fielder or catcher blocking the base or plate without the ball, is not a mitigating factor in determining malicious contact. The runner is still obligated to perform a legal slide or attempt to avoid contact. See Rule 2-32-1,2 for definition of a legal and illegal slide.

 

All 4 are not necessary for MC, and 3 out of 4 ain't bad.  There may have even been some intent to injure, but I'm not sure that can be ascertained from the video.

[scrounge]

Maybe it's not quite MC but at a minimum that kid just earned my suspicion for the rest of the game. Wouldn't argue if it were called either.

And that's a state final? Not that it means anything, but our state final is played in a AAA stadium.

[Jocko]

I definitely have INT. Runners return to TOP base. But doubt I'd call MC

Upon further video study and freeze frame....BR is EJd for MCScreenshot_2014-06-18-18-47-04-1.png

 

I think that pic is misleading.how? It's a still shot of the real footage. This is exactly what happened on the field.

[mhoffman]

Maybe it's not quite MC but at a minimum that kid just earned my suspicion for the rest of the game. Wouldn't argue if it were called either.

And that's a state final? Not that it means anything, but our state final is played in a AAA stadium.

 

Its a good question why the state finals are held all the time in toms river.  I'm not sure of that answer to be honest with you, when we have stadiums all across the state from AA trenton thunder (yankees) to tons of independent ball parks that are taken care of greatly.  I mean they do play football championships at rutgers and met life, hockey at prudential center no idea why baseball isn't in a non high school complex.

[goody14]

I have MC on this.  He lowered his shoulder and drove through him

[noumpere]

 

I definitely have INT. Runners return to TOP base. But doubt I'd call MC

Upon further video study and freeze frame....BR is EJd for MCScreenshot_2014-06-18-18-47-04-1.png

 

I think that pic is misleading.

 

I agree.  The movement of the runner at the time the pic was taken was more perpendicular to the line than through the fielder.

[Jocko]

I definitely have INT. Runners return to TOP base. But doubt I'd call MC

Upon further video study and freeze frame....BR is EJd for MCScreenshot_2014-06-18-18-47-04-1.png

 

I think that pic is misleading.

I agree.  The movement of the runner at the time the pic was taken was more perpendicular to the line than through the fielder. so a body block is legal?

[noumpere]

 

 

 

I definitely have INT. Runners return to TOP base. But doubt I'd call MC

Upon further video study and freeze frame....BR is EJd for MCScreenshot_2014-06-18-18-47-04-1.png

 

I think that pic is misleading. I agree.  The movement of the runner at the time the pic was taken was more perpendicular to the line than through the fielder. so a body block is legal?

 

One, we're not talking about legal or illegal.  We're talking about MC or not.

 

Two, a body block is still through the fielder.

[Jocko]

@noumpere -

1. not sure I get the gist of your post.

B. From what I saw in replay and frame by frame, I see zero reason for contact, much less ABOVE THE WAIST contact. If this were R3 colliding with F2, would it be MC? Absolutely.same applies here.

*Note* I had the benefit of several rewinds. I support whatever the crew called, as long as they got INT. MC or not depends on whether you're drinking or pouring.

[noumpere]

I agree that the general criteria is the same.  But, since runners don't usually slide at first, the "above the waist" might not apply.  And, even at home under college rules, "above the waist" just means INT ("contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.")  -- it doesn't also automatically mean flagrant / MC.

[JRobinson]

No question it's Interference but not MC in my judgement. One would have to be110% on MC. From my prospective, this is not.