Malicious contact/unsportsmanlike conduct

[Guest Guest]

R3, 2 outs, FED:

On a pitch in the dirt, R3 runs home and scores, as the throw gets away. F1 ran to cover the plate. As R3 is standing up, R3 and F1 become tangled, and R3 violently shoves F1 to the ground. PU ejects R3, calls him out for malicious contact, and says the run does not count. Offensive coach argues that since the altercation occurred after the play, the run should still count and he should not be called out (does not dispute the ejection). Who is right? Thanks

[Replacematt]

I don't agree that this is malicious contact from this description. This fits better under unsportsmanlike conduct, which would mean the run counts, there is no out on the incident, and the player is ejected.

[ErichKeane]

I'm not going to judge the Malicious Contact, that is a HTBT.  I'll trust the Ump on the scene on that one.

 

As far as the out, NFHS 3-3-1:

A coach, player, substitute, attendant, or other bench personnel shall not:

...

(m): Initiate malicious contact on offense or defense

...

Penalty: The umpire shall eject the offender from the game.  Failure to comply shall result in game being forfeited.  In (m), the ball is immediately dead, if on offense, the player is ejected and declared out, unless he has already scored. ...

 

SO I think the run-not-counting is incorrect.

[ArchAngel72]

I would say it was after the play

 

No out run scores but player is ejected for un-sportsman like  conduct.

[The Man in Blue]

I admit, I would potentially have kicked this one.  I could have sworn I was taught that malicious contact can erase the run, but I'm willing to accept I was wrong.   In looking it up, I think it may go back to a possible discrepancy in the NFH Softball rulebook ... 

8-6-14

ART. 14 . . . She remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.

PENALTY: (Arts. 10 through 14) The ball is dead and the runner is out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. When a runner is called out for interference, the batter-runner is awarded first base and credited with a fielder's choice. If this interference, in the judgment of the umpire, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate succeeding runner shall also be called out. If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball, the runner is out and the ball is dead. A foul ball is called in this situation and the batter remains at bat unless it was a bunt attempt with two strikes on the batter (F.P) or it was the third strike (S.P); the batter is also out in these cases. (Art. 14) The runner is also ejected.

Now, there is no mention of retired or scored runner here (I'll let that argument stay in the other thread!), but ...

3-6-18 give us this:

ART. 18 . . . Initiating malicious contact is prohibited.

PENALTY: (Arts. 18, 19) Considered serious offenses, the offender shall be ejected. (Art. 18) If by the offense, the play is dead immediately, the offender is declared out unless she has already been put out or scored and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the malicious contact (8-6-14). If by the defense, the offender is ejected at the end of playing action.

This is where digital rulebooks come in handy.  Use the search function and don't stop until you have read everything associated with that search term!! 😁

 

[ErichKeane]

12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I admit, I would potentially have kicked this one.  I could have sworn I was taught that malicious contact can erase the run, but I'm willing to accept I was wrong.   In looking it up, I think it may go back to a possible discrepancy in the NFH Softball rulebook ... 

8-6-14

ART. 14 . . . She remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.

PENALTY: (Arts. 10 through 14) The ball is dead and the runner is out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. When a runner is called out for interference, the batter-runner is awarded first base and credited with a fielder's choice. If this interference, in the judgment of the umpire, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate succeeding runner shall also be called out. If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball, the runner is out and the ball is dead. A foul ball is called in this situation and the batter remains at bat unless it was a bunt attempt with two strikes on the batter (F.P) or it was the third strike (S.P); the batter is also out in these cases. (Art. 14) The runner is also ejected.

Now, there is no mention of retired or scored runner here (I'll let that argument stay in the other thread!), but ...

3-6-18 give us this:

ART. 18 . . . Initiating malicious contact is prohibited.

PENALTY: (Arts. 18, 19) Considered serious offenses, the offender shall be ejected. (Art. 18) If by the offense, the play is dead immediately, the offender is declared out unless she has already been put out or scored and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the malicious contact (8-6-14). If by the defense, the offender is ejected at the end of playing action.

This is where digital rulebooks come in handy.  Use the search function and don't stop until you have read everything associated with that search term!! 😁

 

The only references i can find to the initiator being 'out' in that case is against a 'runner'.  However, once they have touched the plate, they are no longer a runner, correct?

[wolfe_man]

I agree with Matt here.  I don't have malicious contact (during a play) I have unsportsmanlike conduct and an EJ after the play.  Run scores, no out and R3 is gone.

I believe the PU is thinking correctly in trying to punish the offense for a dirty play, but getting an out and negating the run was an overreach as the extracurricular activity occurs after the play is over.   He probably wasn't sure of what else to do, so he got the EJ, an out and removed the run as punishment for the shoving.

Side note: I believe most HS umpires would benefit from continued training and feedback than what is offered currently.  Too many are trained, pass the test and are turned loose without anyone ever following up to help provide guidance and feedback on their performance.  If we advance or progress, far too often it's only because of a personal desire or maybe we had another good umpire volunteer to help us by mentoring and/or being willing to give advice.

[The Man in Blue]

8 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

The only references i can find to the initiator being 'out' in that case is against a 'runner'.  However, once they have touched the plate, they are no longer a runner, correct?

I said we were leaving that in the other thread!  🤣  I agree. 

8-6-14 specifies THE RUNNER (i.e., the person committing the infraction).  So ... if (from the other thread) we are going to extend the "she's still a runner" principle through the slide ... she is out.  We need to look back to 3-6-18 which infers she is now a retired/scored runner (not out).

Let me just say, this set of rules is poorly written and I know that.

EDIT: adding to @wolfe_man's comment ... not only is that VERY important, but it is equally important to know your codes if you are working different orgs/sports/levels.  Do NOT apply things that don't apply.  While I appreciate Childress' BRD, that is one of my biggest knocks against it.  Instead of making a case for an interpretation, it often implores umpires to "treat as" another code that they may not know.

 

[noumpere]

37 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I admit, I would potentially have kicked this one.  I could have sworn I was taught that malicious contact can erase the run, :

It can IF it's ALSO a FPSR violation.  there's some baseball case book play to that effect -- it just confuses the issue, imo.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

It can IF it's ALSO a FPSR violation.  there's some baseball case book play to that effect -- it just confuses the issue, imo.

In which case it's not the MC that causes the out and run nullification, it's the FPSR.

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

R3, 2 outs, FED:

On a pitch in the dirt, R3 runs home and scores, as the throw gets away. F1 ran to cover the plate. As R3 is standing up, R3 and F1 become tangled, and R3 violently shoves F1 to the ground. PU ejects R3, calls him out for malicious contact, and says the run does not count. Offensive coach argues that since the altercation occurred after the play, the run should still count and he should not be called out (does not dispute the ejection). Who is right? Thanks

Coach should file protest and find out.  Unless a league forbids protests there are very few situations where coach and umpire should be arguing a rule interpretation.