NFHS Malicious Contact or Not?

[UAME]

I posted this as a reply under another MC thread in the Rules subforum.  Sorry for the duplication, but hoping for as many responses as possible.  I am in my second season of umpiring, so lack a lot of situational experience.

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]

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.

 

But you did say MC and got the EJ. So, the bottom line is that the runner will now learn an important lesson.  He must attempt to avoid any contact with a fielder in the act of making a play on him or he risks an EJ in the future.  This isn't a bad thing to learn at JV and the 2-game suspension will help it to soak in.   Could you have only banged him on INT? Yes, but he will have more to learn this way I believe. 

[GreyhoundAggie]

Based on the reading I am ok with what you called. I agree with Wolfe. Good to teach to avoid contact especially at the JV level.

I'd rather get the MC and an ejection than regret not calling it later.

[maven]

4 hours ago, UAME said:

I immediately ejected for malicious contact, which I am now questioning myself about.

Don't. Your call was very likely correct (I'd need video to say with certainty).

4 hours ago, UAME said:

I have no doubt that the runner intended to dislodge the ball via contact above the waist.

That's illegal, and an 8-4-2c violation, as you suggest.

The runner made no attempt to avoid contact, and intentionally threw an elbow. As I envision it, I'd get MC for that every time. There's no "reflex" involved when a runner decides not to slide legally (which gets him off the hook for virtually everything).

MC doesn't have to be evil and vicious. This is the kind of contact that has no place in amateur baseball. Penalize it (which you did) without a moment's regret.

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, 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. 

Extend "intent to injure" to "indifference to whether he injured the player or not".

If you think there was a reckless disregard, even without explicit "intent" it's MC.   

For me, without being there and just going by your description, the lifting of his arm crossed that threshold.

[834k3r]

I'm a fan of gut instinct. In the OP, if your gut said it's MC go with it. No one here is going to tell you you're wrong.

When we make a close/questionable/contentious call we all second-guess ourselves. I think we're all better served by going with our gut--especially in the moment.

As always, YMMV.