2024 NFHS POE (malicious contact)

[SeeingEyeDog]

In the 2024 rule book, the first POE is malicious contact and to quote, "While not a new topic, malicious contact registers as the third most discussed Point of Emphasis behind good sporting behavior and pitching restrictions."

I don't have the national perspective on this that NFHS does. I am trying to get that perspective. There are no wrong answers here...Is malicious contact really a thing for you as an umpire and your market? Do you see it/call it a lot? I typically call this once or twice a year and I have never called it in a high school game, only travel games. And upon speaking with some of my local brothers their experiences are similar with a small minority saying they have indeed called it in a scholastic game. What are you guys seeing on this?

And I get it...why, for NFHS, those are the three biggest topics for them. Sportsmanship, real or imagined, is a perception issue for any governing body in the civilized world. No group wants to be out there actively taking a position against sportsmanship. Same for pitching restrictions...I once attended a presentation from a biomechanical scientist who started his talk saying that the action of pitching a baseball is one of the most damaging everyday things that a human being can do to their arm. Compare to softball with its underhanded delivery which biomechanically is a more natural throwing motion and less damaging to the arm and shoulder. So, again like with sportsmanship, no governing body wants to be out there not taking a platform that demonstrates they are trying to protect youth arms. (They are failing and that's not entirely their fault...)

For malicious contact, there's an injury risk. There are many cameras on nearly every youth sports game now which leads to endless speculation where there is a collision about what the injuries were and although we cannot read another person's mind and what they intended to do, we all try to read their intent. Why did they bring their forearm up on that play at the plate and hit the catcher in the face? That catcher got hurt. Did the runner mean to do that? And of course, we don't need an injury to call malicious contact. It's just part of the overall conversation. Which of course leads to...Is there liability here? What are the coaches teaching their kids about the game? Where is school administration on this? Has this coach's teams had these incidents before? And finally, who is the governing body and what are they doing to minimize these sorts of incidents? Which is why we have POE's and overhead transparency presentations back in the day and now videos and teleconference calls and presentations.

I don't deny this is a priority conversation for NFHS...I'm just curious about the frequency of malicious contact situations on the baseball fields and what you guys are seeing. Does frequency even matter because all it takes is one serious incident where inexplicably malicious contact is not called and now it's just a legal free for all?

~Dawg

[beerguy55]

On 2/4/2024 at 11:18 AM, SeeingEyeDog said:

Does frequency even matter because all it takes is one serious incident where inexplicably malicious contact is not called and now it's just a legal free for all?

Whether or not you call MC on a particular play should have no bearing on a legal free for all.   Whether you called MC or not has no bearing on the injury that occurred on the play in question.

You might have a problem if this was the third incident in the same game with the same player, and he wasn't ejected for one of the earlier infractions.

I'd speculate the ongoing POE approach here is to ensure they meet/surpass any legal/regulatory minimum standard, and can't be accused of fostering a culture that allows MC, and to show they're doing all they can to eliminate avoidable collisions.  "Your Honor, our rules are there in black and white, AND we make it a Point of Emphasis at the beginning of every season - there is no reasonable coach or player who plays under these rules that would not have a clear understanding of the rule and its penalties."

Where there could be ongoing issues if there's no real formal mechanism to escalate penalties to repeat offenders, or if someone claims that the base penalties are weak enough to simply look like nothing more than a platitude, and allow/encourage players to determine that the penalty is outweighed by any perceived benefits - rendering the rule mostly superficial.

I would argue that expulsion from the game is often not enough of a deterrent (what if it was the last play of the game?).  

How about an automatic three game suspension for any MC call?

How about an automatic two game suspension for ANY ejection?

You might see some behavior change.

 

On 2/4/2024 at 11:18 AM, SeeingEyeDog said:

although we cannot read another person's mind and what they intended to do, we all try to read their intent. ... Did the runner mean to do that?

Remember that you don't need "intent"..."disregard" or negligence rise to the level of equating to intent.  You don't need to determine the runner tried to injure the fielder...only that he didn't give a SH*# if he did or not.   At best, your job is to determine if the runner tried to avoid the collision (including bracing themselves for something unavoidable), which should be easier than trying to read their mind.

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

Great post there, @beerguy55...yeah, I like your take on repeat offenders and the penalties discussion. If we really wanted to end MC, we would suspend a player for the remainder of the season including playoffs for a MC ejection. To harsh? Yup. But, if we want it out of the game, a remainder of the season suspension would take it out of the game. Playing in a high school baseball game is an option, nobody is required to be out there.

~Dawg

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I would argue that expulsion from the game is often not enough of a deterrent (what if it was the last play of the game?).  

How about an automatic three game suspension for any MC call?

How about an automatic two game suspension for ANY ejection?

You might see some behavior change.

9 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Great post there, @beerguy55...yeah, I like your take on repeat offenders and the penalties discussion. If we really wanted to end MC, we would suspend a player for the remainder of the season including playoffs for a MC ejection. To harsh? Yup. But, if we want it out of the game, a remainder of the season suspension would take it out of the game. Playing in a high school baseball game is an option, nobody is required to be out there.

~Dawg

With respect to both of you, I actually think we'd see a decrease in MC calls and ejections. I think (based on zero quantitative data) that most umpires would see the mandatory suspension portion of the penalty as too punitive for most MCs/objections.

 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, 834k3r said:

With respect to both of you, I actually think we'd see a decrease in MC calls and ejections. I think (based on zero quantitative data) that most umpires would see the mandatory suspension portion of the penalty as too punitive for most MCs/objections.

 

I have to agree here. I would say the way to implement something like this would be a “three strikes you’re out”  approach  First one - ejection, second, suspend a set number of games. Third- your highschool baseball career is over. 

[beerguy55]

21 hours ago, Richvee said:

I have to agree here. I would say the way to implement something like this would be a “three strikes you’re out”  approach  First one - ejection, second, suspend a set number of games. Third- your highschool baseball career is over. 

Agreed - theoretically the umpire would have no foreknowledge about what strike a particular player is on.  He can call the play on its own merit.

I think an escalation framework for repeat offenders is necessary.

I do however think the first strike still needs to be more than just that game's ejection - I've always believed that for any level, for any ejection...even if it's just one more game.  It eliminates any notion of not caring about getting tossed in a game that is over, almost over, or the score has already determined its eventual outcome.

 

Edited for typo

[wolfe_man]

Do you guys have MC often?  I haven't had it more than a few times in a couple hundred games.  I'm just curious why we'd need a strike 1-2-3 for a HS player when they only play maybe 18-20 games per year.  If a kid is a problem, I would think that he's not going to be around long enough, most likely, for us to have to worry about him and a plan to remove him from HS ball.

I'm starting to think either I've been fortunate or possibly not doing a good enough job of getting MC.  I think I've had two in my 9 year HS career thus far and they were no-doubters.  I don't call out MC unless I'm confident it was MC, not accidental or incidental contact that was unavoidable.

Just curious, not picking boogers or fights.

[BLWizzRanger]

In WV, there is already an escalation clause on the books for player/ coach ejections which start at 3 games, 6, and suspended for 365 days. WV allows 30 regular season games, thus one ejection costs the ejectee 10% of the season.

Doesnt other states have rules like these?

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[wolfe_man]

1 hour ago, BLWizzRanger said:

In WV, there is already an escalation clause on the books for player/ coach ejections which start at 3 games, 6, and suspended for 365 days. WV allows 30 regular season games, thus one ejection costs the ejectee 10% of the season.

Doesnt other states have rules like these?

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk
 

In OH, an EJ is automatic two games - no matter when it occurs. 

Example: If in the last game of the year you get ejected, then you sit out the first two games of next year (if applicable).

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Agreed - theoretically the umpire would have to foreknowledge about what strike a particular player is on.  He can call the play on its own merit.

I think an escalation framework for repeat offenders is necessary.

I do however think the first strike still needs to be more than just that game's ejection - I've always believed that for any level, for any ejection...even if it's just one more game.  It eliminates any notion of not caring about getting tossed in a game that is over, almost over, or the score has already determined its eventual outcome.

I’m fine with an extra game for first offense. 

[kylehutson]

4 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

Do you guys have MC often?

I'm in about the same boat as you are, Wolfe. 10 years in high school and two MC ejections. In both cases, the coach came out of the dugout, and I was expecting them to argue something. Instead the conversation was "his sub is number ..."

[Catch18]

we would suspend a player for the remainder of the season including playoffs for a MC ejection. To harsh? Yup.
~Dawg

Respectfully, this is one of the worst takes I’ve ever read on this site.

And what does required to be out there vs. extra-curricular have to do with anything?

[Velho]

12 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

Respectfully, this is one of the worst takes I’ve ever read on this site.

Let's give the full context to make it easier to follow the thread since I viewed it as @SeeingEyeDog  talking out loud vs vociferously proposing that as a rule change (he can speak for himself of course):

On 2/5/2024 at 1:00 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

If we really wanted to end MC, we would suspend a player for the remainder of the season including playoffs for a MC ejection. To harsh? Yup. But, if we want it out of the game, a remainder of the season suspension would take it out of the game. Playing in a high school baseball game is an option, nobody is required to be out there.

@Catch18  if MC was a season long ejection you don't think MC would all but disappear? 

 

15 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

And what does required to be out there vs. extra-curricular have to do with anything?

In my experience, teenagers forced to do something will behaving petulantly to express their dissatisfaction and/or as a way to get out of the required activity (ever seen intentional pink laundry? 🤣)

[Catch18]

In my experience, teenagers forced to do something will behaving petulantly to express their dissatisfaction and/or as a way to get out of the required activity (ever seen intentional pink laundry? )

No, I don’t think it would disappear - remember, someone can accidentally maliciously contact someone. “Sorry Johnny, you probably didn’t mean to do that, I believe you. Unfortunately, that’s the rule - enjoy your senior year from the stands.”

It’s not a matter of a deterrent - it’s so out of this galaxy unreasonable.

I know what I’m talking about in penalties/ejections/suspensions. I used to work for one of the largest recreation departments in the country. Our sports programs (youth & adult) were some of the largest in the country. In 10 years I issued about 800 suspensions for everything from “F*#K you blue” ejections getting 1 week suspension, to assaults with baseball bats getting a lifetime ban.

I try not to say this with an ego, but in the sports and recreation world, I’m probably the nation’s expert on this topic. (I mean, I’m no Dr. Fauci “I am the science”……but kinda close )

[beerguy55]

8 hours ago, Catch18 said:

 remember, someone can accidentally maliciously contact someone. 

Um...what??

No, you cannot "accidentally" maliciously contact someone, any more than you can accidentally maim/kill someone when drunk driving, or blowing throw a red light at 80 mph.

You may not have had malice aforethought, but you had disregard and/or gross negligence and/or depravity...all of which rise to the level of intent, and dismiss any notion of an "accident".

You accidentally leave the kitchen lights on when you go to bed...you don't accidentally barrel through a catcher you had every opportunity to avoid....and by extension, you don't "accidentally" break his leg or give him a concussion.  Likewise, if you recklessly swing your bat in anger, or throw your helmet in frustration, there is no "accidentally" breaking someone's nose.

I can declare my expertise too - the majority of my job is about cultural behavior change in a multi-billion dollar company.  And I've been pretty successful at it.  Strategically balancing the notion of having people come to me, willingly, to admit mistakes they have made, so that we may act in a timely manner to stop a small problem from turning into a large disaster...with how to handle people who keep making the same mistakes over and over again, which is thankfully rare.

I'm definitely a carrot over stick guy.   But at some point you got to drop the carrot and turn on the ceiling mounted machine gun turrets.

Yes, I agree, there is a point where there is no real deterrent in play.  People act as they act in a fit of passion/emotion (or any human condition where you're not thinking clearly) and aren't necessarily always thinking at that moment.   But you need enough of a penalty where at least the subset of the population that does think before they act doesn't come to the conclusion of "what the Hell, the penalty is only xxx".

The penalty in the NHL for fighting is a five minute rest with a bottle of water, away from other sweaty players, for example.

At some point the question of deterrent turns into one of recidivism.  And at some point, incident 2, 3, 5, or 10 has to result in running out of chances.*

But yes, people still commit murder, even in death penalty states and nations.

I will say, though, that the death penalty certainly deters the guy you convicted**.  Ted Bundy hasn't killed anybody since he was executed.

 

* fully aware that "3 strike legislation" has significant ramifications - sure, it gets a third time felon off the street.  But a guy who's had two felonies doesn't really have any incentive to go down quietly if caught at his third...at that point B&E, or multiple homicides result in the same penalty - I would not expect a high school baseball player to take this extreme approach

**in a Utopian world where nobody is falsely arrested/convicted

[834k3r]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

at some point you got to drop the carrot and turn on the ceiling mounted machine gun turrets.

First things first:  this was my favorite line in this entire thread.

 

Back on topic, I think everyone's bringing up valid points--but therein lies the problem of a "one solution for all."

Wouldn't it be sufficient to add on suspension if the MC scenario warrants?

1. B/R hits a pop up and instead of looking at where he's going he runs full-speed into F3 (trying to field the ball). B/R doesn't dip his shoulder or anything, just full speed runs into F3.
2. The NFHS version of Pete Rose trucking Ray Fosse.

I think we'd all agree both scenarios are MC, but the second scenario contains malevolent intent that the first doesn't. The first is bad judgment on the part of the B/R, but the second is willful, deliberate contact. The two scenarios don't justify the same penalty in my mind.

In the first scenario, I'm asking the manager who's subbing in for the ejected B/R. In the second scenario, I'm giving a lot of detail in my post-game EJ report to my assignor, who will then have a conversation with the school's AD about additional suspension.

[SeeingEyeDog]

19 hours ago, Catch18 said:

Respectfully, this is one of the worst takes I’ve ever read on this site.

And what does required to be out there vs. extra-curricular have to do with anything?

If you worked my market and witnessed the abundance of type A personalities and their spawn and the false entitlements they feel they are deserved...you would understand my experiences and how it informs my perspective and how it differs from yours and where you live and work.

~Dawg

[Catch18]

Um...what??
No, you cannot "accidentally" maliciously contact someone, any more than you can accidentally maim/kill someone when drunk driving, or blowing throw a red light at 80 mph.
You may not have had malice aforethought, but you had disregard and/or gross negligence and/or depravity...all of which rise to the level of intent, and dismiss any notion of an "accident".
You accidentally leave the kitchen lights on when you go to bed...you don't accidentally barrel through a catcher you had every opportunity to avoid....and by extension, you don't "accidentally" break his leg or give him a concussion.
I can declare my expertise too - the majority of my job is about cultural behavior change in a multi-billion dollar company.  And I've been pretty successful at it.  Strategically balancing the notion of having people come to me, willingly, to admit mistakes they have made, so that we may act in a timely manner to stop a small problem from turning into a large disaster...with how to handle people who keep making the same mistakes over and over again, which is thankfully rare.
I'm definitely a carrot over stick guy.   But at some point you got to drop the carrot and turn on the ceiling mounted machine gun turrets.
Yes, I agree, there is a point where there is no real deterrent in play.  People act as they act in a fit of passion/emotion (or any human condition where you're not thinking clearly) and aren't necessarily always thinking at that moment.   But you need enough of a penalty where at least the subset of the population that does think before they act doesn't come to the conclusion of "what the Hell, the penalty is only xxx".
The penalty in the NHL for fighting is a five minute rest with a bottle of water, away from other sweaty players, for example.
At some point the question of deterrent turns into one of recidivism.  And at some point, penalty 2, 3, 5, or 10 has to result in running out of chances.*
But yes, people still commit murder, even in death penalty states and nations.
I will say, though, that the death penalty certainly deters the guy you convicted**.  Ted Bundy hasn't killed anybody since he was executed.
 
* fully aware that "3 strike legislation" has significant ramifications - sure, it gets a third time felon off the street.  But a guy who's had two felonies doesn't really have any incentive to go down quietly if caught at his third...at that point B&E, or multiple homicides result in the same penalty - I would not expect a high school baseball player to take this extreme approach
**in a Utopian world where nobody is falsely arrested/convicted

Wow, calm down there, hoss.

Before anyone assumes I mean “hey it was an accident, don’t worry about it.”

I’d say it’s pretty clear - and if not, here you go - I’ll better describe what I said. MC can be accidental, that doesn’t mean it’s still not MC. We’ve all seen the same videos of players that clearly blow up a catcher w/ no regard for anything. But we’ve also debated, to the millionth degree, plays where a runner doesn’t intend to take a catcher out…but he muffs a slide attempt, did the catcher suddenly lunge into the basepath to catch a throw, or all the other 1000s of clips that are subjective.

Good luck to you this year.

[beerguy55]

26 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

MC can be accidental, that doesn’t mean it’s still not MC. ...But we’ve also debated, to the millionth degree, plays where a runner doesn’t intend to take a catcher out…but he muffs a slide attempt, did the catcher suddenly lunge into the basepath to catch a throw, or all the other 1000s of clips that are subjective.

What you describe isn't MC.  And if you have any doubt in that regard you shouldn't be calling MC.  If you believe F2 made some move to catch the ball, that made the collision with the runner unavoidable/inevitable, it's not MC.  If the runner screwed up his slide, it's not MC.  If the runner tripped and crashed into F2, it's not MC.

Yes, you need to make a judgment call...but just because the collision looked ugly and even if the result of the collision was horrific, that does not, on its face, make it MC.

You need intent to injure, or you need a blatant disregard for safety.  ie. either the player tried to hurt the other player, or didn't care one way or the other if he did.  In short, was the collision avoidable or not.

You cannot determine that a collision was accidental and also rule it MC.  Those two positions are diametrically opposed.  Yes, on occasion you'll see intent where the collision was truly an accident and get the call "wrong"....you make the best judgment you can.  But if you see an accident, and still rule it MC, that would be truly wrong.

OBS and INT can be accidental.  MC cannot.   Likewise in football/hockey things like tripping and holding and interference can be accidental...unsportsmanlike conduct cannot.

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

I see that California has a definition of malicious contact:

"Malicious contact is violent, avoidable contact between two opposing players.  It often occurs when a runner collides with a fielder in an effort to dislodge possession of the ball. Malicious contact can also occur when a fielder unnecessarily applies a hard tag to a runner. Intent and play situation must be a consideration in determining malicious contact. Hard contact is not, in itself, malicious contact."

 

[Velho]

16 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I see that California has a definition of malicious contact:

Funny, this also doubles as our definition for "rush hour traffic"

[BigBlue4u]

Velho, you are a pretty funny guy!!

[johnnyg08]

It happens in our area. But I think we leave some of these on the field when we should be grabbing them. For example...

Ground ball to F6, throws out the BR with a perfect throw who is running to 1B and F3 is positioned in a textbook manner with his foot on the corner of the bag. 

With the entire top and front edge of 1B exposed, the BR steps on the back of F3's foot as he overruns after getting thrown out. 

 

[Tborze]

16 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

It happens in our area. But I think we leave some of these on the field when we should be grabbing them. For example...

Ground ball to F6, throws out the BR with a perfect throw who is running to 1B and F3 is positioned in a textbook manner with his foot on the corner of the bag. 

With the entire top and front edge of 1B exposed, the BR steps on the back of F3's foot as he overruns after getting thrown out. 

 

I have to respond to this!

This exact thing happened to me in a district final. I was ready to pull the trigger but instead, went to the coach and told him what I had seen with the player standing there with us.
I unformed him of the penalty, here it’s at least one game, possibly two. I asked him if he wanted to take care of it or should I?  
At the time, I figured the kid learned his lesson.  Well, I did!  It’s haunted me ever since.  I thought about the F3 who had his foot purposely stepped on and could have had his season/career ended!

Lesson:  Call it when you see it!!

 

 

[johnnyg08]

5 hours ago, Tborze said:

I have to respond to this!

This exact thing happened to me in a district final. I was ready to pull the trigger but instead, went to the coach and told him what I had seen with the player standing there with us.
I unformed him of the penalty, here it’s at least one game, possibly two. I asked him if he wanted to take care of it or should I?  
At the time, I figured the kid learned his lesson.  Well, I did!  It’s haunted me ever since.  I thought about the F3 who had his foot purposely stepped on and could have had his season/career ended!

Lesson:  Call it when you see it!!

That's why we're here! Learn it here so we can use it there.