Avoiding contact?

[th3]

Nhfs rules. Runner heading towards 3rd in a rundown. F5 has ball in glove waiting to tag the runner, maybe 10 feet away from the bag. The runner runner runs straight into f5, with no attempt to slide or avoid contact. F5 holds his glove in front of him for the tag and the ball pops out.

[noumpere]

HTBT, but his could easily be INT(under FED rules)  -- runner out, return the other runners to the base last touched.

 

Or, it could easily be "nothing."

[maven]

As described, this is probably not nothing in FED. F5 has the ball and is not moving, and the runner crashes him. It's either just a live-ball out or INT:

Quote

8-4-2

Any runner is out when he:

c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him;

PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called.

Whether to call INT depends on how much hindrance results from the contact. If the ball gets too far away so that other runners advance, then INT. If the fielder is hurt or hindered from retrieving the ball so that other runners advance, then INT. We do not allow the offense to benefit from this illegal contact, so we call INT, kill it, and send other runners back. Otherwise, probably just the out.

As this occurred during a rundown, I'm not considering a second out for INT.

[th3]

It was the 3rd out. I called the out. 

[berns_97]

in this situation i got nothing. unless the runner made malicious contact im not going to pick up the crappy end of the stick and call INT. Anyone agree?

[noumpere]

36 minutes ago, berns_97 said:

in this situation i got nothing. unless the runner made malicious contact im not going to pick up the crappy end of the stick and call INT. Anyone agree?

"Anyone" might agree -- but I don't.  There can be lots of contact that falls between "legal" and "malicious" in this situation.  If F5 (or any F) " has ball in glove waiting to tag the runner " (as describe in the OP), the runner basically has three choices -- get down, (attempt to ) go around, give up.  .

[JSam21]

24 minutes ago, noumpere said:

"Anyone" might agree -- but I don't.  There can be lots of contact that falls between "legal" and "malicious" in this situation.  If F5 (or any F) " has ball in glove waiting to tag the runner " (as describe in the OP), the runner basically has three choices -- get down, (attempt to ) go around, give up.  .

And if he does none of those things, and the fielder drops the ball, the runner is still out.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. maven, I would like to ask you about the guideline you posited earlier—“Whether to call INT depends on how much hindrance results from the contact.” Where does it come from? Is there a citation or case play?

I know that OBR has an interpretation on interference by a batter-runner after an uncaught third strike that tells us to wait and see whether there is an interfering effect on the following play. I did not know that FED has one for runners committing interference on fielders.

[maven]

35 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. maven, I would like to ask you about the guideline you posited earlier—“Whether to call INT depends on how much hindrance results from the contact.” Where does it come from? Is there a citation or case play?

 

I know that OBR has an interpretation on interference by a batter-runner after an uncaught third strike that tells us to wait and see whether there is an interfering effect on the following play. I did not know that FED has one for runners committing interference on fielders.

2-21-1. No hindrance = no INT.

[Senor Azul]

Thanks for directing me to the definition of interference. It is very helpful. Let me quote part of the definition:

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: …

or b. when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline;

With that definition in mind let’s consider another definition found in the 2014 Points of Emphasis (POE) and in the 2016 BRD:

Contact or a collision is considered to be malicious if:

The contact is the result of intentional excessive force;

The contact occurs close to the bag or home plate or above the waist of the receiving player; or

There was intent to injure.

Malicious contact can occur without these conditions if determined by the umpire, but these provide a starting point.

 

Given these two definitions, I would say for the play in the original post the correct call is interference and malicious contact. The contact occurred near third base and since the runner came at the fielder standing up the contact had to be above the waist.

 

[Replacematt]

6 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Thanks for directing me to the definition of interference. It is very helpful. Let me quote part of the definition:

 

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: …

 

or b. when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline;

 

With that definition in mind let’s consider another definition found in the 2014 Points of Emphasis (POE) and in the 2016 BRD:

 

Contact or a collision is considered to be malicious if:

 

The contact is the result of intentional excessive force;

 

The contact occurs close to the bag or home plate or above the waist of the receiving player; or

 

There was intent to injure.

 

Malicious contact can occur without these conditions if determined by the umpire, but these provide a starting point.

 

 

 

Given these two definitions, I would say for the play in the original post the correct call is interference and malicious contact. The contact occurred near third base and since the runner came at the fielder standing up the contact had to be above the waist.

 

 

 

These are very poorly written. The way these read, any (to include unintentional) contact near the base or any time there's contact above the waist, there's MC. Unless the runner did something excessive in the OP, I'm not seeing it.

[maven]

Agreed: there are no automatic contact criteria for MC, including contact above the waist. Example: fielder has ball, runner pulls up late to give himself up and makes minor contact with the fielder. No MC.

The reason that there are no contact-related for MC is that 'malice' requires intent, and we can't rule on intent based solely on contact. It's possible to have extremely severe contact — even with injuries to one or both players — but no malice (think extreme trainwreck). It's also possible to have MC on minor contact (player swings a haymaker at opponent's head, and the blow is blocked to no effect).

Nothing into the OP suggests MC except the phrase "runs straight into," plus the fact that the ball pops out. That could be MC, or not. I'd need to know more about the contact to judge.

It's perfectly reasonable to raise the issue of MC, though I'd have thought that if it were a question then the OP would have said so.

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Thanks for directing me to the definition of interference. It is very helpful. Let me quote part of the definition:

 

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: …

 

or b. when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline;

 

 

 

 

MC is INT.  INT is not always MC.

[maven]

2 minutes ago, noumpere said:

MC is INT.  INT is not always MC.

MC is not always INT, for example during a dead ball, or when committed by the defense.

It's a catchy slogan, though.

[Replacematt]

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 8:43 AM, maven said:

MC is not always INT, for example during a dead ball, or when committed by the defense.

It's a catchy slogan, though.

I'm trying to think of something I would penalize as offensive MC during a dead ball vice USC. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but I'm also not sure if I agree with you on this.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

I'm trying to think of something I would penalize as offensive MC during a dead ball vice USC. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but I'm also not sure if I agree with you on this.

FED offers this example, in part (b) of which the ball is dead. That case is defensive MC, but if it's the BR crashing F3 after the third out, I'd handle it the same.

Quote

 

3.3.1 SITUATION EE: With two outs, and R1 on second base and R2 on 1st, B3 hits the ball in the gap. R1 touches and rounds third, R2 touches and rounds second. B3 touches and rounds first, F3 initiates malicious contact with B3 as a play is developing at third base on R2 a) before a tag, or b) after a tag.

RULING: In (a), the ball is dead, and in the umpires judgment R1 scores, R2 is awarded third base, B3 is awarded second base, and F3 is ejected for malicious contact. In (b) the ball is dead, the out at third base is recorded, thus making R1's score a timing play. F3 is also ejected for malicious contact.

 

Unsporting conduct is covered in 3-3-1 as well, but is distinct from the other sections and "limited" to 3-3-1f, all the examples of which involve non-contact infractions. This tacit definition is consistent with FED treatment of unsporting conduct in at least some other sports, such as football, which explicitly defines UNS as non-contact (if contact is involved, it's a personal foul).

[Replacematt]

Just now, maven said:

FED offers this example, in part (b) of which the ball is dead. That case is defensive MC, but if it's the BR crashing F3 after the third out, I'd handle it the same.

Unsporting conduct is covered in 3-3-1 as well, but is distinct from the other sections and "limited" to 3-3-1f, all the examples of which involve non-contact infractions. This tacit definition is consistent with FED treatment of unsporting conduct in at least some other sports, such as football, which explicitly defines UNS as non-contact (if contact is involved, it's a personal foul).

Umm...the ball isn't dead at the time of infraction in either of those examples. The ball becomes dead because of the infraction.

[Mister B]

Side question. What is the correct usage of the R# abbreviation. I thought R1 was Runner at 1B, but in the FED example R1 is the leading runner. I think R(base number) is easier as it covers runner and base location vs. having to say R1 at 3B. 

[kylehutson]

12 minutes ago, Mister B said:

Side question. What is the correct usage of the R# abbreviation. I thought R1 was Runner at 1B, but in the FED example R1 is the leading runner. I think R(base number) is easier as it covers runner and base location vs. having to say R1 at 3B. 

You're absolutely correct, R(base number) is easier and clearer, and everybody uses it ... except NFHS's materials which use R1 to be the runner who is on base first, R2 the runner behind R1, etc.

I wish NFHS would use the same system that the rest of the civilized world does, but wishing doesn't do me any good.

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, kylehutson said:

You're absolutely correct, R(base number) is easier and clearer, and everybody uses it ... except NFHS's materials which use R1 to be the runner who is on base first, R2 the runner behind R1, etc.

I wish NFHS would use the same system that the rest of the civilized world does, but wishing doesn't do me any good.

And why would they do that? They need to be different.... or maybe it is a "safety issue"

[ricka56]

13 hours ago, maven said:

Unsporting conduct is covered in 3-3-1 as well, but is distinct from the other sections and "limited" to 3-3-1f, all the examples of which involve non-contact infractions. This tacit definition is consistent with FED treatment of unsporting conduct in at least some other sports, such as football, which explicitly defines UNS as non-contact (if contact is involved, it's a personal foul).

USC may be limited by 3-3-1f in Fed rules, but 3-3-1f is not limited to the 7 examples given. And 3-3-1-f1 and 3-3-1-f4 could involve some physical contact. OBR doesn't have any MC code and their USC code doesn't include physical conduct either, but what rule do you cite to justify ejecting an OBR player who cold-cocks another. Baseball doesn't have a personal foul penalty, but everyone knows that this guy has to be ejected for his extreme USC.

[VolUmp]

I used to carry FED 8-4-2 in my lineup folio.  NOT to show a coach, but to show my partner (as Maven said above) that there is a lot of contact that can fall between incidental and MC.  Too many umpires think if you call INT for this type of collision that you MUST eject for MC.

I've lobbied for years to create a FED rule called RC (Reckless Contact) only because SC (Stupid Contact) is so politically incorrect.

"Time!  That's INT ... RC ... runner's out.  You ... return to 1B"