Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 12/11/2020 at 7:42 AM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. HokieUmp, I did read all the posts so let me recap for you. (Fortunately I keep my stupid rule books at my work desk so it was easy to post that rule you mentioned—it’s 3-3-1p.)

Anyway there were two U-E members who were trying to persuade us that the act of fighting can be construed as an act of malicious contact. I guess we were using the wrong arguments since we were not able to dissuade either of them. Perhaps we should have mentioned that the governing state associations would disagree with them. In my state (California) the offense of fighting carries a more severe penalty than malicious contact. For a player’s first fighting offense the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) can mete out a three to six game suspension and for a coach the suspension is for the rest of the season.

I searched their bylaws and the term fighting has its own section but the term malicious contact is not used. I suppose the fact that the state association handles fight situations is the reason that the FED playing rules book does not go into great detail about fighting.

Then we waxed ecstatic over the fact that some state rules interpreter couldn’t seem to find any rules support for our position. But he agreed with us because it was the path of least resistance. Then you came along. I’m here for you if you should need any more summaries.

Thank you for the specific cite.  I should probably remember that notation, as a partner and I invoked it in '19 to eject around 30 players total, as documented elsewhere on this forum.  3-3-1p should actually be burned into my memory, if not the basis for a future tattoo.  (Sorry, I don't save my rulebooks, year-on-year - they keep printing new ones, and I keep taking 'em.  This years might be in the trunk of my car;  might not.)

I did finally go back, and re-read all the words thrown down on this thread.  My personal take for MC v fighting is that MC is used/invoked for things that are "baseball activities" (my term), where fighting has nothing to do with the acts of making outs or scoring runs.  THAT'S why I wouldn't apply MC to this discussion at all - talking SH*# and throwing hands doesn't involve outs/runs.

I'm sure the UIL in Texas has clauses for non-game contact - the young man from south of here that shoved a referee in a football playoff game is gonna find out all about them - but I'm not sure what a first-timer would get.  Probably something like what you're saying for the CIF.  As far as the rules interpreter:  I'm not sure why he went with 'least resistance;'  again, not a "baseball action," so you can't get outs, or take away base awards.  There are already interpretations/case plays for batters who hit a HR, then say something to get ejected - they, or a replacement, are still entitled to bases earned before they were dumb-asses.  This is right in that wheelhouse.

.....And don't think the soupçon of sarcasm here wasn't appreciated.  It was, indeeed!  <chef's kiss>

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

a. Eject both players, replace the batter-runner with another player and score the run, tying the game.

Maybe I didn't read everything through in each post (but that hasn't stopped me before from speaking up, so.....) Why in God's name is malicious contact coming up so much as I scroll down the scr

FWIW, I actually did a "Moderator" thing - not bad, one time in roughly 13 (or whatever) years - and got rid of your extras.

11 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

You really need to get MC out of your head here. This is Fighting plain and simple.  Was the contact Malicious? Yes... of course. But not the same type as the MC rules are talking about. 

In your addendum to the play. Only the BR is ejected. The minute he throws the punch all play stops. You don't want kids running and and balls throw while the tension is that high.

The nice thing is, is that since the fight seems done after the one punch. You can actually jump in the middle of it and with your voice and presence, hopefully defuse the situation. 

One thing that we may want to talk about though... is do we officially distribute warnings to both teams about retaliation? I.e. hit by pitches? Or does everyone just assume warnings are automatic and any shenanigans will be dealt with accordingly? 

Just watched the NCAA clinic yesterday, and they talked about this. After you take care or ejections and informing coaches, issue those warnings. The more often you cane fit in official warnings, the easier it is to defend yourself, and, perhaps more importantly, the easier it is for your coordinator/assignor to defend you.

Yes, this is from NCAA training/protocol, but it's just as applicable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

Just watched the NCAA clinic yesterday, and they talked about this. After you take care or ejections and informing coaches, issue those warnings. The more often you cane fit in official warnings, the easier it is to defend yourself, and, perhaps more importantly, the easier it is for your coordinator/assignor to defend you.

Yes, this is from NCAA training/protocol, but it's just as applicable.

I figured as much as a SOP for us as a whole. Not just certain levels.

On a side note. Your reply posted 4 different times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Biscuit said:

Oh dear... I think I know what happened. Lessons in the new software!

FWIW, I actually did a "Moderator" thing - not bad, one time in roughly 13 (or whatever) years - and got rid of your extras.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @NorthTexasUmp, I finally opened the TASO email that drove you to post this in the first place.  "Self," I says, "I GOT this one!  We just spent a few days talking about this on U-E!"

Not realizing it was a fellow Texan that had posted it here.

And then I got it wrong, per what Kyle wrote.

Put it this way:  if I'm unfortunate enough to have this happen, and for a SECOND time in Texas, have to invoke the "purposes of a confrontation" clause - and fighting, from this example - I guess I'm gonna get overturned by either TASO or the UIL on the inevitable protest.  Because I'm Team A all day long on this, and am gonna absolutely refuse to call abandonment in this situation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

Hey @NorthTexasUmp, I finally opened the TASO email that drove you to post this in the first place.  "Self," I says, "I GOT this one!  We just spent a few days talking about this on U-E!"

Not realizing it was a fellow Texan that had posted it here.

And then I got it wrong, per what Kyle wrote.

Put it this way:  if I'm unfortunate enough to have this happen, and for a SECOND time in Texas, have to invoke the "purposes of a confrontation" clause - and fighting, from this example - I guess I'm gonna get overturned by either TASO or the UIL on the inevitable protest.  Because I'm Team A all day long on this, and am gonna absolutely refuse to call abandonment in this situation.

Well, our chapter inquired about the answer. Then he changed tunes on the reason. He went with what a few on here have said and judging it as Malacious Contact making the batter-runner out before reaching first. We still disagree with him. Fortunately, there are no Protests allowed in Texas. So, like you, I will go with A too. I'm been fortunate so far in not having this issue, come close a few times, but never anything requiring mass ejections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...