NFHS Malicious contact (judging intent or also severity/neglect?)

[Tog Gee]

Considering that an umpire can't look into the runner's heart and know for sure if they intended to harm another player...

What are the de facto guidelines for calling MC that yall use? I've pasted some NFHS stuff at the bottom of the post... "intent" is referenced twice. Sometimes malice is obvious (lowering of a shoulder and driving into a player, changing course into another player) but it seems MC can be called just because the runner knocked someone over at high speed and maybe "didn't do enough" to avoid contact. "Above the waist" is referenced below but it's doesn't say "intentionally above the waist".

Per below, if it occurs close to the plate or bag, malice can be assumed because they were possibly trying to loosen the ball from a glove. 

What I am getting at: doesn't the severity of the collision/interaction also warrant some MC calls? i.e. it could perhaps instead be called "negligent/malicious contact" or "excessive/malicious contact" (the player neglected to play in a safe manner). 

Though, for example, when a fielder playing a sharply batted ball suddenly charges into the path of a runner, it can result in a severe collision but without malice or negligence. (just bad luck and INT?)

 

From another post:

The following language appeared as a FED Point of Emphasis in 2014--

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.

 

[The Man in Blue]

Welcome to the ranks and the ways it gets complicated ...

If you believe it was malicious, make sure you can explain your reason for ejecting or not ejecting.  That's my standard.  If possible, do not eject immediately, gather your thoughts, talk to your partner if you need to.  It is far better to eject after you show the situation was considered and you are certain.  NEVER "uneject" if you pulled the trigger too fast and changed your mind. 

Two different examples of plays at the plate that I had in recent years, which I will do my best to explain:

Play 1: R3 is coming home and, while the ball is coming in, there is no play going to be made.  Catcher is out in front of home plate, but not by much.  He is not obstructing.  R3 dips his shoulder and chucks the catcher in the back as R3 crosses home.  He didn't drop his shoulder in an effort to miss the catcher and accidentally get him (which is what his coach claimed).  Malicious?  Pretty obvious.  So what did I see?  I cannot say, "He hit him.  Hard."  Too hard." 

My explanation to his coach for ejecting R3: R3 had a clear path to and through the plate.  I saw R3 dip his shoulder, grab his forearms as if preparing for an impact which could only be created by him altering his course and "launching" at the catcher.  The runner was not being carried by momentum as he changed direction. 

Play 2: R3 (who is a BIG kid) is coming home and the throw has him easily beat.  About 20 feet from home he stops and starts retreating to third by running backwards (still facing home plate).  The catcher, with the ball, starts to chase him.  As the catcher goes to apply the tag, R3 begins to fall backwards and the catcher starts to go down with him.  To some people, it looked like a tackle.  What did I see that I did NOT eject the catcher?   I saw the catcher move for the tag and the runner start to go down first.  Since the runner was falling down, there was nothing to stop the catcher and he went down on top. 

Unfortunately, R3 took offense to the perceived "hard tag," hopped up, and went after the catcher and was ejected for that.

My explanation to the coach *and to the runner, who came to talk to me after the game* : I saw the catcher extend the tag and it would have been just that if the runner had stayed upright.  Since the runner began to fall backward first, the catcher's momentum took him down the same path.  The catcher did not leap or launch at the runner, he leaned and reached out.  There was nothing to indicate he was out to hit, push, or tackle the runner. 

The coach and the player were content with the explanation (and explanation why the runner was ejected for going after the catcher).  After the game, the runner was one of the nicest kids I have met in the game.  He was apologetic and sincere about wanting to know what happened.

 

TLDR: Contact is going to happen.  Hard contact is going to happen.  If you think it is malicious, you best be able to explain exactly why (including where the line was that was crossed).

While that POE (and Merriam-Webster) uses the term "intent to injure" I would caution against that as your standard.  A deliberate act done recklessly can still be grounds for ejection.  You will always hear, "I didn't intend to injure him, I was just trying to get him out of the way."  If a reasonable person would look at the action and conclude harm would come, consider it the same as malicious.

[Tog Gee]

Thanks a ton for all that information.

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Welcome to the ranks and the ways it gets complicated ..

Excellent post.  My vote for post of the day!  BTW, I suggested a definition of malicious contact for the NFHS rule book.  But, the suggestion was declined.  

[UAME]

Here is a play that I had last night:

NFHS high school JV, Runner attempting to score, relay throw from F6 reaches F2 who was standing along the line in fair territory about 3 feet up the line towards 3B.  The throw reaches F2 about 2 steps ahead of the runner reaching F2's location.

Extenuating facts that contributed to the optics of this play:  (and this is no exaggeration) the runner is around 6ft & 315lbs, F2 is about 4'-8" and possibly less than 100lbs.  (I have seen F2 for years through youth baseball in the area, he has some form of dwarfism but is athletic.)

F2 catches the ball and moves over the baseline to apply the tag.  When the runner sees the catch and the immediate forthcoming tag, he does not slide (truth is, he's probably so large/slow and so far up the line that he wouldn't have been able to slide and make it to the plate.)  Instead of avoiding via a sidestep, the runner contacts the catcher with a "shrug" and then lifting of the arm.  I think that he WOULD have lowered his shoulder, but the statures of the 2 players prevented that.  The head of the catcher is about bicep height on the runner.  The effect was the the runner essentially "flung off the catcher" by lifting his elbow, and knocking the catcher away and knocking the ball loose.

I immediately ejected for malicious contact, which I am now questioning myself about.  I have no doubt that the runner intended to dislodge the ball via contact above the waist.  I don't think there was any intent to injure or even dislocate the catcher via a violent collision.  I think it was a reflex reaction and neither player was injured as a result of the play.

If the two players had been more equally matched in size, I don't think the OPTICS of the actions would have appeared as bad as it did.

I have read and re-read NFHS 2-32 (slide definitions) and 8-4-2 b & c.

In the heat of the moment, I knew (and still feel) that I needed an OUT despite the fact that F2 did not retain possession of the ball through the tag.  Should I have left malicious contact alone and instead have applied 8-4-2b ("causes illegal contact" and got the OUT via Interference??) or 8-4-2c ("does not legally attempt to avoid..")??

[wolfe_man]

7 minutes ago, UAME said:

In the heat of the moment, I knew (and still feel) that I needed an OUT despite the fact that F2 did not retain possession of the ball through the tag.  Should I have left malicious contact alone and instead have applied 8-4-2b ("causes illegal contact" and got the OUT via Interference??) or 8-4-2c ("does not legally attempt to avoid..")??

I think you were okay to get the MC based on optics - but I do agree an EJ might be a bit excessive. I like the 8-4-2c as a better fit here.  You get the out, immediate dead ball since you judged INT and no EJ (2 game punishment) if you didn't feel he was trying to hurt the F2. 

 

Runner is out when...

8-4-2c - 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.

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

I think you were okay to get the MC based on optics - but I do agree an EJ might be a bit excessive. I like the 8-4-2c as a better fit here.  You get the out, immediate dead ball since you judged INT and no EJ (2 game punishment) if you didn't feel he was trying to hurt the F2. 

 

Runner is out when...

8-4-2c - 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.

Agreed -- and emphasis added to the relevant point -- too many think it says "avoid" -- it's the attempt that matters.

[Mudisfun]

On 2/28/2023 at 8:01 AM, wolfe_man said:

I think you were okay to get the MC based on optics - but I do agree an EJ might be a bit excessive. I like the 8-4-2c as a better fit here.  You get the out, immediate dead ball since you judged INT and no EJ (2 game punishment) if you didn't feel he was trying to hurt the F2. 

 

 

If you rule MC, then you have to apply the penalty and eject. 

If you rule only interference, then you can get the out and not eject.

[wolfe_man]

21 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

If you rule MC, then you have to apply the penalty and eject. 

If you rule only interference, then you can get the out and not eject.

Right, MC is EJ… but 8-4-2c (INT)has no EJ.

[maven]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:49 PM, Toggy said:

Considering that an umpire can't look into the runner's heart and know for sure if they intended to harm another player...

OK, here we go.

First off, the list from the FED POE you quoted are examples, not definitions, of MC. Often, MC involves intent to injure, but the rule does not require that. Often, MC involves intentional excessive force, but the rule does not require that. 

FED has resisted defining MC in general, and specifically avoided introducing intent, because they want umpires to use their sense. Just as in football, there is a class of contact that they need to get out of their game, so in baseball. That's MC. The class has broadened in the past 10 years, especially in pro ball.

Next, we ALL judge each others' intentions, all the time, every waking moment. Every time you speak to someone, you're judging whether their words are sincere or ironic, for instance. We decide what a driver's intention is—to keep driving straight and hit us or to finish that weird turn they're making. We read a friend's body language and know immediately that something terrible has happened, or they're furious and about to hit someone.

Human beings evolved to be excellent at reading each others' minds, including intentions and emotions. Nothing easier. If we can do it our entire waking life off the diamond, we can surely do it while umpiring. So let's drop that objection.

The real qualm people have with MC is ejection, which they're afraid to do. Ejection serves a number of purposes, including preventing retaliation, and it's a valuable tool for us. It sends a lesson to the offender that the behavior he just engaged in has no place in baseball. And it's not the death penalty, nor even that big a deal in his life (and, possibly not his first).

An umpire who doesn't want to eject shouldn't call MC, but I encourage honesty with ourselves about why we're downgrading the call. I use the tool when I need to. It's not that big a deal, and in my state the HS association has oversight of all ejections. I've never had a problem with one, from a coach, an AD, or the state—indeed, half the time coaches thank me for trying to help with their problem children.

[The Man in Blue]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:46 AM, UAME said:

I have no doubt that the runner intended to dislodge the ball via contact above the waist.  I don't think there was any intent to injure or even dislocate the catcher via a violent collision.  I think it was a reflex reaction and neither player was injured as a result of the play.

If the two players had been more equally matched in size, I don't think the OPTICS of the actions would have appeared as bad as it did.

 

I do not believe we want a specific definition.  I like @maven's words on this and agree.  There are some things that having a specific definition on starts to tie our hands rather than free up our judgment.

I would bring focus to the bolded line above though.  While I wouldn't consider that malicious contact in and of itself, I think it definitely lends itself to helping make your case.  This is an illegal action that is being done deliberately.  It is an action that intends to use illegal force to attain a desired outcome.  The intent may not be to injure, but the intent is to use illegal force.   

The size discrepancy, as you note, may be the deciding factor.  As you said, a similarly sized catcher may have had a different outcome and negated the MC factor, even though the action was still the same.  The specific action was intended either way, but doing so in one case is wantonly reckless.  

From this, I think your MC was a justified call.

[beerguy55]

No drunk driver ever intended to kill anyone.

 

Intent is the beginning of the conversation.  Complete indifference easily rises to the level of intent.

[catsbackr]

On 3/4/2023 at 12:51 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

I do not believe we want a specific definition.  I like @maven's words on this and agree.  There are some things that having a specific definition on starts to tie our hands rather than free up our judgment.

I would bring focus to the bolded line above though.  While I wouldn't consider that malicious contact in and of itself, I think it definitely lends itself to helping make your case.  This is an illegal action that is being done deliberately.  It is an action that intends to use illegal force to attain a desired outcome.  The intent may not be to injure, but the intent is to use illegal force.   

The size discrepancy, as you note, may be the deciding factor.  As you said, a similarly sized catcher may have had a different outcome and negated the MC factor, even though the action was still the same.  The specific action was intended either way, but doing so in one case is wantonly reckless.  

From this, I think your MC was a justified call.

Yeah, I disagree with the above.  I believe we want and need a definition.  

 

I believe we absolutely need verbiage such as attempted to injure, attempted to dislodge, made no legitimate attempt to get to the base only the fielder, etc.

 

Just my opinion.

[The Man in Blue]

38 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

Yeah, I disagree with the above.  I believe we want and need a definition.  

 

I believe we absolutely need verbiage such as attempted to injure, attempted to dislodge, made no legitimate attempt to get to the base only the fielder, etc.

 

Just my opinion.

 I can totally respect that opinion and that is why the pendulum swings back and forth on these issues.  Say we did get verbiage that said "attempted to injure" ... Then the argument becomes "He may have injured him, but that isn't what he was attempting to do."

Every generality opens up a can of worms ... every specificity opens up a specific can of worms.  Damned if you do, damned if don't. 

[johnnyg08]

I don't like the "intent to injure" component. I would argue that the vast majority of collisions involve the intent to score a run rather than the intent to injure. 

[maven]

18 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I don't like the "intent to injure" component. I would argue that the vast majority of collisions involve the intent to score a run rather than the intent to injure. 

"Component" of what? I posted this back in March:

On 3/4/2023 at 8:27 AM, maven said:

First off, the list from the FED POE you quoted are examples, not definitions, of MC. Often, MC involves intent to injure, but the rule does not require that. Often, MC involves intentional excessive force, but the rule does not require that. 

There is no intent to injure "component," at least not in the sense that it's criterial. That's just one kind of MC, and there are others.

[beerguy55]

19 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I don't like the "intent to injure" component. I would argue that the vast majority of collisions involve the intent to score a run rather than the intent to injure. 

"Intent to catch the ball" can cause collisions too, but we also recognize that typically the fielder is the vulnerable person in this scenario.

I don't think anything mandates "intent to injure" to be present, but nobody can deny that intent to injure is MC.

To your point, I agree that "intent to score" or "intent to reach the base" is the overarching mindset of the runner here, and with that comes the defining aspect that can make it MC...that is "the intent to score at any cost" - it's that lack of care that makes it MC.  Depraved indifference, gross negligence, reckless disregard, and other similar terms/scenarios all rise to the level of intent, and for all intents and purposes are indistinguishable in any discussion about malice.  As I stated above, no drunk driver ever intended to kill anyone.  But most of us consider the act of getting behind the wheel drunk to be malicious.

As long as we avoid results to influence our assessment - because malice, negligence, and complete freak accident with no fault can all have the same results.   And sheer dumb luck of no resultant injury doesn't remove any malice or negligence.

[SH0102]

When you eject a player for MC, any convo that follows with the coach should be devoid of any mention of intent. It’s too much of an argument point. I can say “I had him trying to injure the catcher”. Well now you spoon fed the coach something to hang his argument on: “no he did not intend to hurt him!”

”coach, your player used excessive force, and that level of contact must be addressed, enforced, and removed from our game” (especially at amateur levels) 

Whether he “meant to” or not is irrelevant

[maven]

4 hours ago, SH0102 said:

When you eject a player for MC, any convo that follows with the coach should be devoid of any mention of intent. It’s too much of an argument point. I can say “I had him trying to injure the catcher”. Well now you spoon fed the coach something to hang his argument on: “no he did not intend to hurt him!”

”coach, your player used excessive force, and that level of contact must be addressed, enforced, and removed from our game” (especially at amateur levels) 

Whether he “meant to” or not is irrelevant

I disagree.

Play 1: runner blows up catcher intentionally, lowering his shoulder and trucking him.

Play 2: runner blows up catcher unintentionally, trying but failing to avoid F2 who had moved into his path at the last minute.

In these 2 plays, the contact is identical, with identical consequences. I'm ejecting for MC in the first one, and I'm explaining it to coach in the only way that makes sense: the only relevant difference is the intent of the runner.

Coach might disagree with the judgment component of my call and deny that his runner intended to crash F2. He's entitled to his opinion. That's not a reason to redescribe my call, any more than I would redescribe a close play on the bases simply because coach might dispute my judgment.

Being too concerned about coach disagreement here might be rooted in the thought that we can't read minds. I addressed that mistaken notion as well in my March post above.

[SH0102]

It’s not a matter of “being concerned about coach disagreement”, it’s about using language that explains the call and not even offering them a point to argue.

Runner is ejected either way, intent or not, so why even discuss it ?

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Coach might disagree with the judgment component of my call and deny that his runner intended to crash F2. He's entitled to his opinion

Are you telling the coach the player intentionally crashed into/through the catcher, or the player tried to injure the catcher?  There is a difference, and though both are judgment calls, there's a difference in what a rat coach will latch onto and try to argue. 

The first judgment is almost impossible to dispute, and leaves him simply with the counter "it was an accident"...and leaves him open to looking really stupid if it's blindingly obvious to everyone that it was not an accident...so, he's less likely to argue it. ("fine coach, you thought it was an accident - in my judgment it was not, end of discussion")   The second can almost universally be disputed, (he wasn't trying to hurt the catcher, he was just trying to get to the plate) and said coach will die on that semantical hill.   Comes down to whether you're happy to open the door and eject him too, or simply avoid that SH*#burger.  ("fine coach, he didn't try to kill the catcher, he just didn't care one way or the other if he did...it's still an ejection...we're done")

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Intent is a booger I don’t pick.  If necessary, I explain what I saw.  I look for details and don’t try to peer into anybody’s head.

One of the biggest things I look for is an “unload.”  Twice this past weekend I had “hard tags” on a batter-runner coming up the first baseline, and then had a crash at home plate.  In all three instances I saw the runner brace late for the impact, which can look like “loading” for a hit.  If there is no “unload” (push, shove, launch, etc.) then I am generally not going with malicious contact.  

In all three cases, being able to explain it that way was sufficient for the coaches and tournament folks that asked later.  

Also, in all three cases, I believe it helped that I immediately acknowledged it and checked on both players (not for injuries but for temperament).

[BigBlue4u]

On 7/17/2023 at 6:24 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Intent is a booger I don’t pick.  If necessary, I explain what I saw.  I look for details and don’t try to peer into anybody’s head.

Here's some news for you.  Intent is VERY MUCH an important part of determining malicious contact.  And, yes, sometimes you DO have to be a mind reader. (peering into someone's head.)

[Tog Gee]

The NFHS point of emphasis states:

 

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

 

That doesn't mention intent. It deals with circumstance and location. Maybe NFHS need to clarify more.  

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Here's some news for you.  Intent is VERY MUCH an important part of determining malicious contact.  And, yes, sometimes you DO have to be a mind reader. (peering into someone's head.)

 

I disagree.  I watch for the physical clues.  I'll get by a lot better with being able to describe those to a coach than trying to tell him what his player was thinking.

And as has been said before, malicious is not synonymous with intentional.  A player most certainly can do something malicious without having the intent of causing an injury.