catcher gets bull-dozed

[Double Up]

Okay, I own that i may not have enforced this correctly,  but it made perfect sense to me at the time.

R2 is headed home on a hit in the gap.  The Catcher,  without the ball, is blocking the plate wating for the ball. 

R2  with nowhere to go does not slide, but rather drops the shoulider full steam into score. 

The play at the plate wasn't even close, but the lowering of the shoulder to blow up the catcher is not tolerated. 

 I scored the run, but ejected the player for unsportsman like conduct.    Pitcher  secured the ball, which prevented the BR from advancing any further, but let's say BR keeps on running into score as well...  we would most certainly have ourselves a situation to deal with.

 

Let me have it.  OBR and NFHS ( if theres a difference)

[834k3r]

21 minutes ago, Double Up said:

Okay, I own that i may not have enforced this correctly,  but it made perfect sense to me at the time.

R2 is headed home on a hit in the gap.  The Catcher,  without the ball, is blocking the plate wating for the ball. 

R2  with nowhere to go does not slide, but rather drops the shoulider full steam into score. 

The play at the plate wasn't even close, but the lowering of the shoulder to blow up the catcher is not tolerated. 

 I scored the run, but ejected the player for unsportsman like conduct.    Pitcher  secured the ball, which prevented the BR from advancing any further, but let's say BR keeps on running into score as well...  we would most certainly have ourselves a situation to deal with.

 

Let me have it.  OBR and NFHS ( if theres a difference)

FED says the malicious contact takes precedence over the OBS. Out, ejection, no score.

[Double Up]

3 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

FED says the malicious contact takes precedence over the OBS. Out, ejection, no score.

I later learned this.  thanks! 

[DevildogUmp]

Also, under FED malicious contact is an immediate dead ball (5-1-m) so you don't have to worry about any other runners continuing to run the bases.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, 834k3r said:

FED says the malicious contact takes precedence over the OBS. Out, ejection, no score.

May I be the contrarian ... did he touch the plate or the catcher first?

If he touched the plate before the malicious contact, you only have an ejection.  No out, run scores.

[834k3r]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

May I be the contrarian ... did he touch the plate or the catcher first?

If he touched the plate before the malicious contact, you only have an ejection.  No out, run scores.

The OP says "[t]he Catcher,  without the ball, is blocking the plate wating (sic) for the ball." That tells me he's between 3B and HP, so contact with the catcher would presumably be before the runner touches home.

If by some acrobatic play he leapt over the catcher to touch home, I don't think he'd maliciously contact the catcher--and he'd still be out in FED (8-4-2d). YMMV.

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

May I be the contrarian ... did he touch the plate or the catcher first?

If he touched the plate before the malicious contact, you only have an ejection.  No out, run scores.

If I'm umping, in my judgment he hit the catcher first...

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If I'm umping, in my judgment he hit the catcher first...

Always the safe way to see it.

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, 834k3r said:

The OP says "[t]he Catcher,  without the ball, is blocking the plate wating (sic) for the ball." That tells me he's between 3B and HP, so contact with the catcher would presumably be before the runner touches home.

If by some acrobatic play he leapt over the catcher to touch home, I don't think he'd maliciously contact the catcher--and he'd still be out in FED (8-4-2d). YMMV.

 

Not debating the merit of the statement "blocking the plate" but, IMO, that rarely (but not never) means the catcher is literally standing between the runner and the plate, fully blocking 100% of the plate.  It is realistic for the foot to hit the plate before the body/shoulder/elbow hits the catcher.  In my post in the malicious contact thread, I didn't delve into that detail, but that is what we had. 

By rule, once he scores, he is no longer a runner.  You can't call him out or wipe off the run.  You can just eject.

Having been down that road, my advice is: take @beerguy55 's advice and just see it that way.

[Richvee]

On 2/9/2023 at 8:22 PM, The Man in Blue said:

By rule, once he scores, he is no longer a runner.  You can't call him out or wipe off the run.  You can just eject.

I'm not playing fractions of a second with this rule. If the malicious hit is over the plate, there's no way I'm scoring that run. The only way that run scores is if the hit comes at least a step after the runner hits the plate. Yes, F2 would have to be standing in foul territory, at least in the LH batter's box.  

[The Man in Blue]

I love it when I am chastised around these parts for railing on about allowing pitchers to do the hokey-pokey, but other rules are OK to enforce as you see fit.

I am OK with you choosing to enforce the rule differently as long as you understand the rule, and that was my main point.  Like I said, the best route is to just see it with @beerguy55 goggles on.  You won't get much push back.  However it is important to know that automatically calling the runner out and wiping the run off the board is NOT the rule.  Some umpire will embed that in his mind and enforce it on an ejection that occurs after the runner legitimately scores.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I love it when I am chastised around these parts for railing on about allowing pitchers to do the hokey-pokey, but other rules are OK to enforce as you see fit.

I am OK with you choosing to enforce the rule differently as long as you understand the rule, and that was my main point.  Like I said, the best route is to just see it with @beerguy55 goggles on.  You won't get much push back.  However it is important to know that automatically calling the runner out and wiping the run off the board is NOT the rule.  Some umpire will embed that in his mind and enforce it on an ejection that occurs after the runner legitimately scores.

Whence have you been chastised about pitchers around these parts?

[mac266]

It sounds like the OP learned what he needed to learn.  NFHS, malicious contact takes precedence, so he's out and ejected, no run scores.

[lawump]

On 2/9/2023 at 8:22 PM, The Man in Blue said:

By rule, once he scores, he is no longer a runner.  You can't call him out or wipe off the run.  

Unless the contact is also a force play slide rule violation.  For example, bases loaded, no outs.  Ground ball to F1 who throws to F2.  R3 slides in a straight line into home plate (and touches home plate).  R3 would be "safe" because F2 pulls his foot.  R3 continues to slide in a straight line through home plate, but then reaches out with his left arm and maliciously slashes at F2's leg as F2 is trying to throw to F3.  

The penalty for the "force play slide" rule would negate R3's run even though he touched the plate before the malicious slash/contact.

[BigBlue4u]

While we are on the subject, has anyone found a definition of "malicious contact?"   Does anyone have a personal definition?

[wolfe_man]

9 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

While we are on the subject, has anyone found a definition of "malicious contact?"   Does anyone have a personal definition?

I don't know if you can flatly define MC.  As I suspect you already know, it's going to be based on umpire judgment. It's hard to define intent to a large group of people with various backgrounds and ideas.  One might think a hard look shows intent, whereas another may say 'no blood, no foul'.

[beerguy55]

12 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

While we are on the subject, has anyone found a definition of "malicious contact?"   Does anyone have a personal definition?

I think the dictionary definition of malicious would suffice, wouldn't it?

I would add apathy to the standard...that staves off any claim of "I wasn't trying to hurt him"..."No, you just didn't give a SH*# one way or the other".

Negligence, disregard, apathy...any of those rise to the level of malice pretty quickly....at that point, you no longer need "intent" - eg. a drunk driver doesn't "intend" to hurt anybody...they simply don't care enough to even consider it....hockey has a similar position with stick-related injuries...whether you two-hand someone over the head like a battle axe, or simply swing your stick around with blatant disregard, you're getting penalized...after that's it's just a matter of how many games.

[The Man in Blue]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:00 PM, lawump said:

Unless the contact is also a force play slide rule violation.  For example, bases loaded, no outs.  Ground ball to F1 who throws to F2.  R3 slides in a straight line into home plate (and touches home plate).  R3 would be "safe" because F2 pulls his foot.  R3 continues to slide in a straight line through home plate, but then reaches out with his left arm and maliciously slashes at F2's leg as F2 is trying to throw to F3.  

The penalty for the "force play slide" rule would negate R3's run even though he touched the plate before the malicious slash/contact.

 

I am not going to disagree with this at the moment ... but I will ask what I am missing.  I do not see anything along these lines.  I'm reading NFHS though, are you citing another code?

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I think the dictionary definition of malicious would suffice, wouldn't it?

I would add apathy to the standard...that staves off any claim of "I wasn't trying to hurt him"..."No, you just didn't give a SH*# one way or the other".

Negligence, disregard, apathy...any of those rise to the level of malice pretty quickly....at that point, you no longer need "intent" - eg. a drunk driver doesn't "intend" to hurt anybody...they simply don't care enough to even consider it....hockey has a similar position with stick-related injuries...whether you two-hand someone over the head like a battle axe, or simply swing your stick around with blatant disregard, you're getting penalized...after that's it's just a matter of how many games.

That's where using the dictionary definition is a problem.  That definition requires intent, and I believe recklessness (and the things you mention) can be considered equivalent to malice for this purpose. 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

That's where using the dictionary definition is a problem

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I am not going to disagree with this at the moment ... but I will ask what I am missing.  I do not see anything along these lines.  I'm reading NFHS though, are you citing another code?

Case 8.4.2W (from 2017, so the reference may have changed)

[mac266]

On 2/16/2023 at 7:43 PM, BigBlue4u said:

While we are on the subject, has anyone found a definition of "malicious contact?"   Does anyone have a personal definition?

It's purely a judgement call.  Was he being malicious?  Yes?  Out and ejected.

 

Some things I look for:  Hid he drop the shoulder and plow into the catcher instead of sliding?  Was the slide legal? 

[Richvee]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:44 PM, The Man in Blue said:

May I be the contrarian ... did he touch the plate or the catcher first?

If he touched the plate before the malicious contact, you only have an ejection.  No out, run scores.

See (b)

 

 

8.4.2 SITUATION W:

 

The bases are loaded with (a), less than two outs, or (b), two outs. B5 hits a ground ball to F4, who throws to F2 for the force out at home. The throw pulls F2 off home plate several steps toward the first-base side. R3, seeing F2 ready to make a play on B5 at first base, touches home plate and maliciously crashes into F2.

 

RULING: (a) Since this is a force-play situation, R3 and B5 are declared out and no one scores. R3 will be ejected from the game. In (b), R3 will be declared out and ejected for the contact, and no run will score.

 

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

See (b)

 

 

8.4.2 SITUATION W:

 

The bases are loaded with (a), less than two outs, or (b), two outs. B5 hits a ground ball to F4, who throws to F2 for the force out at home. The throw pulls F2 off home plate several steps toward the first-base side. R3, seeing F2 ready to make a play on B5 at first base, touches home plate and maliciously crashes into F2.

 

RULING: (a) Since this is a force-play situation, R3 and B5 are declared out and no one scores. R3 will be ejected from the game. In (b), R3 will be declared out and ejected for the contact, and no run will score.

 

That caseplay seems to reenforce only the scoring rules. The 2007 NFHS rules interps have a statement that allows a runner who has scored to remain scored.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

That caseplay seems to reenforce only the scoring rules. The 2007 NFHS rules interps have a statement that allows a runner who has scored to remain scored.

You sure it's 2007? I'm looking for the interp and didn't see it. 

[noumpere]

These three interps in the 2017 seem to reinforce the "run does not score" on a FPSR violation:

 

SITUATION 7: With bases loaded and no outs, the batter hits a slow ground ball to the shortstop, who fields the ball and throws home. The runner from third base slides in a direct line between third base and home plate and arrives at home before the ball arrives. The runner’s slide carries the runner over home plate and into the catcher, who is now unable to make a play on another runner because of the contact by the runner. There was nothing malicious in nature with the slide. RULING: Because the runner slides in a direct line between the two bases, it is permissible for his momentum to carry him through the plate in the baseline extended. With the slide being legal, merely sliding past home and into a fielder does not constitute an illegal act. The runner is safe and there is no resulting penalty. (2-32-2c)

SITUATION 8: With runners on second and third, the third-base runner is taking his lead-off position well in foul territory to the side of third base. The batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman, who fields the ball and throws home in an attempt to put out the runner advancing from third. The runner from third base, still in the base path he established when he first attempted to advance home, slides over home plate and into the catcher. The catcher was knocked down by the contact from the runner from third base and is unable to make a play on the batter-runner advancing to second base. RULING: Since the runner from third base slides in a straight line in his established base path, and there are no other aspects of the slide present that would make the slide illegal, the run counts and play continues. There is no penalty on the play. (2-32-2c)

SITUATION 9: The runner from third base slides past home plate, out of his established base path. He then contacts the catcher, preventing him from making a play on the runner at second base. RULING: If the play at home plate was a non-force play, the run would count, but the ball would be dead when the runner contacted the catcher. An out on the runner at second base would be called due to the third-base runner’s interference. If the play began as a force play, because the runner slides out of his base path, this is now force-play slide interference. The ball is immediately dead, the run will not count, and the runner plus the batter-runner will be declared out. (2-32- 2c, 8-4-2b Penalty)