NFHS Malicious Contact?????

[beerguy55]

19 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

Three steps at full speed isn't enough time to make a 3-4 foot adjustment. Where do you want R1 to go? F2 moved right between him and the plate, I don't think it's reasonable to expect R1 to recognize that and make a significant adjustment in three steps. 

I'm going to ask you a question that is going to seem snotty, but I'm asking seriously and respectfully.

Have you played the game at any competitive level?

I have.  And I guarantee you that even at full speed you have the ability to pull up, try to veer, sidestep...and in many cases, do it successfully - three steps is a lifetime.  In any scenario where you have the ability to lift your elbows (as this guy does) and drive through your obstacle, you had time to avoid it, or at least try to avoid it.

How do I know?  I've done it.  I've done it both ways.  I've plowed through the catcher, by choice  And I've pulled up, by choice.  In one case, I had the umpire step in my path at the last second, and I basically hopped, sidestepped around him...I still bumped him, but I didn't plow through him, and he didn't fall over.   Why did I make that decision?  Because it was in my best interests to do so.  I guarantee you that if this kid's mother stepped into his path he wouldn't have done what he did to that catcher.

In this scenario, this runner already has a path to the plate, and he frankly just needs to move one step to the right to maintain it...instead he moves one step left, and, again, with elbows up, drives through the catcher.   He had every opportunity to sidestep the catcher, or at least minimize the impact.

When you talk about the literal last second, you have the catcher moving into the runner basically as the runner is going by...where the runner actually thinks he's by the catcher, and then they collide.  That's not what happened here.  In virtually any scenario where the catcher "suddenly" moves in front of the runner the runner has time to do SOMETHING.   In this case, he raised his elbows and drove through.

 

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, CJK said:

Make a significant adjustment to his path, probably not.  Make a significant adjustment to his lean and upper body rotation, certainly.

He pulled his arms in, leaned forward, rotated his upper body, dropped his shoulder, and drove through F2 all in a matter of a step and a half.  If he extends his arms, has a backward lean, or tries to duck away, he's safe on OBS.  If he loads up and leads with his shoulder and elbow at chest height, then he's out for MC.

And I think that's an argument that can certainly be made. I see him tucking his arms in bracing for impact, which is what I'd expect any reasonable runner to do in that situation. Bracing for impact isn't illegal. 

2 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm going to ask you a question that is going to seem snotty, but I'm asking seriously and respectfully.

Have you played the game at any competitive level?

I have.  And I guarantee you that even at full speed you have the ability to pull up, try to veer, sidestep...and in many cases, do it successfully.  In any scenario where you have the ability to lift your elbows (as this guy does) and drive through your obstacle, you had time to avoid it, or at least try to avoid it.

How do I know?  I've done it.  I've done it both ways.  I've plowed through the catcher.  And I've pulled up.  In one case, I had the umpire step in my path at the last second, and I basically hopped, sidestepped around him...I still bumped him, but I didn't plow through him, and he didn't fall over.   Why did I make that decision?  Because it was in my best interests to do so.  I guarantee you that if this kid's mother stepped into his path he wouldn't have done what he did to that catcher.

In this scenario, this runner already has a path to the plate, and he frankly just needs to move one step to the right to maintain it...instead he moves one step left, and, again, with elbows up, drives through the catcher.   He had every opportunity to sidestep the catcher, or at least minimize the impact.

When you talk about the literal last second, you have the catcher moving into the runner basically as the runner is going by...where the runner actually thinks he's by the catcher, and then they collide.  In virtually any scenario where the catcher "suddenly" moves in front of the runner the runner has time to do SOMETHING.   In this case, he raised his elbows and drove through.

 

That's a valid question. No, I haven't played since I was a kid. Before HS age. Here's the thing, it's in R1's best interest to go to the plate. He's on track for HP before the catcher gets in his way. Now, he can either stay on course knowing he's going to collide, which he did, or he can sidestep and more than likely miss the plate. At that point he's putting a lot of trust in U1 to call obstruction and award him home. If he clips F2 and goes tumbling off to the side of home plate, there's a good chance he doesn't get back to the plate in time (assuming F2 comes up with the ball). If he had more time to completely avoid F2 and still reach HP, that would be in his best interest. But given the situation he was in, he's better off to stay within the rules and take his last two steps in a straight line than to try and veer off and end up away from the plate. 

[JSam21]

13 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

But is he required to? 

What is your interpretation of 8-4-2-c?  But we both know he isn't allowed to run through him... If he makes some movement in an attempt to avoid the contact then it shows that he wasn't trying to collide with the defender. When the runner doesn't... and he makes contact above the waist... and he uses excessive force... it kind of shows that he was the one looking to create the contact.

[LRZ]

2 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

At that point he's putting a lot of trust in U1 to call obstruction and award him home

Well, isn't that the way the rules have been drafted to resolve the tension between runner and fielder, to avoid these kinds of collisions? At least in amateur baseball, having a runner called out, rather than awarded home on obstruction, is better, as a matter of policy, than having a kid trucked, with the potential for serious injury.

[beerguy55]

2 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

At that point he's putting a lot of trust in U1 to call obstruction and award him home

And that's the fundamental statement to the whole conversation.  Coaches and players alike need to be able to trust that umpires are going to get OBS/INT right without some embellishment...at least to the same level of consistency they get anything else right.    There are too many umpires that want contact for OBS/INT...so coaches/players make sure they create contact to get the call they should be getting.  This is why you have such an epidemic of flopping in soccer.  Players have been conditioned by referees who don't call anything unless they see a player hit the turf.   If umps show they will make the call without contact...and if ump associations educate leagues and team associations of this approach each season, then hopefully you'll see the shift.

This ump had the OBS part right.

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, JSam21 said:

What is your interpretation of 8-4-2-c?

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

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

I'm advocating that F2 isn't protected where he his, which takes the responsibility off the runner to try and run around him. If F2 is receiving the throw in fair territory where he started, he's certainly protected under this rule. Given the late adjustment, I'm arguing that R1 isn't legally required to avoid F2. Since MC is the argument here, you're saying that interference should've been called, right? So let's say that F2 only moves far enough to unintentionally trip R1 on his way home but there's no monster collision. Would you then say that R1 should be called out because he didn't attempt to avoid F2? If not, I don't think this is the relevant rule to consider. Rather, I think we should only consider whether or not MC occurred. 

[JSam21]

16 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

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

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

I'm advocating that F2 isn't protected where he his, which takes the responsibility off the runner to try and run around him. If F2 is receiving the throw in fair territory where he started, he's certainly protected under this rule. Given the late adjustment, I'm arguing that R1 isn't legally required to avoid F2. Since MC is the argument here, you're saying that interference should've been called, right? So let's say that F2 only moves far enough to unintentionally trip R1 on his way home but there's no monster collision. Would you then say that R1 should be called out because he didn't attempt to avoid F2? If not, I don't think this is the relevant rule to consider. Rather, I think we should only consider whether or not MC occurred. 

Fair enough. I guess the "Required" part isn't needed on the runners part. I think I've made my case on why an attempt to avoid the collision would help alleviate the MC call here and where no attempt solidifies a MC call here. 

[umpstu]

1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

Does he have to when the catcher moves into his way at the last moment? 

He leaves his feet.

[catsbackr]

48 minutes ago, CJK said:

Make a significant adjustment to his path, probably not.  Make a significant adjustment to his lean and upper body rotation, certainly.

He pulled his arms in, leaned forward, rotated his upper body, dropped his shoulder, and drove through F2 all in a matter of a step and a half.  If he extends his arms, has a backward lean, or tries to duck away, he's safe on OBS.  If he loads up and leads with his shoulder and elbow at chest height, then he's out for MC.

This^^^!

[Stk004]

4 minutes ago, umpstu said:

He leaves his feet.

Not until he runs over the catcher. 

1 minute ago, catsbackr said:

50 minutes ago, CJK said:

Make a significant adjustment to his path, probably not.  Make a significant adjustment to his lean and upper body rotation, certainly.

He pulled his arms in, leaned forward, rotated his upper body, dropped his shoulder, and drove through F2 all in a matter of a step and a half.  If he extends his arms, has a backward lean, or tries to duck away, he's safe on OBS.  If he loads up and leads with his shoulder and elbow at chest height, then he's out for MC.

This^^^!

Extending his arms wouldn't be legal. If you agree that he lowered his shoulder to drive through the catcher then yes, MC is supportable. 

I'm looking for the right answer here, I really am. I'm just trying to get at why this could be MC, because running over the catcher isn't enough. Lowering his shoulder to plow over the catcher, however, would be. 

[JSam21]

29 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

Not until he runs over the catcher. 

Extending his arms wouldn't be legal. If you agree that he lowered his shoulder to drive through the catcher then yes, MC is supportable. 

I'm looking for the right answer here, I really am. I'm just trying to get at why this could be MC, because running over the catcher isn't enough. Lowering his shoulder to plow over the catcher, however, would be. 

Why is it MC? Excessive force used and a point of contact above the waist in a potentially avoidable collision. 

[catsbackr]

16 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Why is it MC? Excessive force used and a point of contact above the waist in a potentially avoidable collision. 

Someone a long time ago said, "I can't describe pornography, but I know it when I see it."  It's the same thing with MC.  As soon as I saw the video, i said, "that's MC."  I don't know why you don't see it, but the runner lowered his shoulder, led with his forearm and in my opinion attempted to dislodge the ball.  I know I'm mixing codes a little here, but I've got MC all day.

[umpstu]

12 hours ago, scrounge said:

This, at least to me, definitively proves that the catcher didn't materially move into an unavoidable collision. The runner made absolutely no attempt to do anything other than go in a direct line to the plate, catcher be damned. He had his line and dammit, he was sticking to it.

Upward crouch, initiating contact to the catcher's head/neck area, raising his elbow and shoulder in order to deliver a blow, no attempt whatsoever to avoid. What on earth do we need further to say it was MC? Frankly, while I deeply respect those who disagree, I'm troubled they don't see it.

And could the PU have had a worse angle? Completely screened.

That umpire is not screened.  He's so screened he calls obstruction.  He should have called MC.  Ridiculous he didn't call it.

[umpstu]

10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

This still is less than a step away from the collision. F2 isn't lowering anything. @Thunderheads is spot on here. Heck his eyes are still looking toward centerfield...but #1 looks like Ray Lewis prepared to lower the boom! 

 

You're right. This is definitely an NFL quality hit. He launches.

[JaxRolo]

I don’t have MC here. Runner trying to get to the plate and F2 gets in his way. Too quick for runner coming full speed to try to avoid.

[JaxRolo]

At least IRL, I disagree -- far too many write it off as "just baseball" or "they just got in the way" -- and MC is NOT called nearly as often as it should be.

I don’t have Just baseball.
I have OBS

[catsbackr]

9 hours ago, JaxRolo said:

I don’t have Just baseball.
I have OBS

Jax,

 

It's not HS baseball.  This play checks all the boxes for MC under Fed.

 

I'm kind of surprised you don't see it.

[Tborze]

Does anyone know these two teams?  Is there some bitter rivalry?  

The reason I ask is if there may be some intentions here, possibly even by the catcher. It appears he steps into the runners path at the last second looking for the ball, but out of all the videos, clips and stills, I have not seen ONE baseball!

I don't see the runner plowing into the catcher, I see the catcher getting plowed by the runner. There is a difference. 

[CJK]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

I don't see the runner plowing into the catcher, I see the catcher getting plowed by the runner. There is a difference. 

I'm not sure anyone really thinks that the runner decided halfway home that he was going to truck the catcher.  And I feel like everybody agrees that the catcher stepped into the path of the runner, and that he did it late.  In fact, it seems to me like everyone agrees on all those things (which makes this OBS), and even that contact is virtually unavoidable.

It's the reaction of the runner to the catcher's movement that's inappropriate.  He could have put out his hands out, elbows bent, to protect himself.  He could have drawn his arms into his body to protect himself.  He could have tried to turn his body to duck/squeeze/dance past the catcher.  Any of those would have been fine and entitled him to an award of home plate.

Instead, he reacted by lowering his shoulder and driving up through the chest of the catcher with his shoulder and elbow.  That's not what you do to protect yourself.  That's what you do when you want to knock a guy out of his shoes and make him blow snot bubbles.  There are sports where that's appropriate game-related action, and baseball isn't one of them.  That's why it's MC.

[Tborze]

I'm calling Sports Science and ask them to run a test. 

Have 100 people run full speed for 90' and 10' from the finish line, have a 150lb punching bag pop out of the ground. 

I would bet all 100 would show the same actions and result as in this play.

It would also be fun to watch___<so many emojis to chose from  

 

[CJK]

11 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Have 100 people run full speed for 90' and 10' from the finish line, have a 150lb punching bag pop out of the ground. 

I would bet all 100 would show the same actions and result as in this play.

It's a better parallel if the punching bag is standing there ahead of time and just slides over 2 feet right at the end.  Plus, the instructions for the test need to indicate that the punching bag might move, and also make clear that it's completely against the rules of the exercise to cause significant damage the punching bag.

[JSam21]

49 minutes ago, Tborze said:

I'm calling Sports Science and ask them to run a test. 

Have 100 people run full speed for 90' and 10' from the finish line, have a 150lb punching bag pop out of the ground. 

I would bet all 100 would show the same actions and result as in this play.

It would also be fun to watch___<so many emojis to chose from  

 

 

9 minutes ago, CJK said:

It's a better parallel if the punching bag is standing there ahead of time and just slides over 2 feet right at the end.  Plus, the instructions for the test need to indicate that the punching bag might move, and also make clear that it's completely against the rules of the exercise to cause significant damage the punching bag.

Exactly... because with no rules I'm just going to run right through it for S&Gs. 

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

I'm calling Sports Science and ask them to run a test. 

Have 100 people run full speed for 90' and 10' from the finish line, have a 150lb punching bag pop out of the ground. 

I would bet all 100 would show the same actions and result as in this play.

It would also be fun to watch___<so many emojis to chose from  

 

I will guess that nearly 100% of the time the contact will be minimal and the runner would still be able to touch the plate...not to mention he'll already have it awarded to him by the umpire via obstruction. Umpires underestimate the athlete. 

[Mister B]

To match this, they'd need to run 360 feet. 

[johnnyg08]

17 minutes ago, Mister B said:

To match this, they'd need to run 360 feet. 

Nah, full speed from 2B would suffice.