BLWizzRanger Posted Saturday at 04:47 AM Report Posted Saturday at 04:47 AM I worked a scrimmage game today for a local college. I was BU and had a run down between second and third. The runner went back and forth a couple of times but was eventually tagged out. Before he was though, he ran into a fielder to try drawing an obstruction call. It was a decent collision but I ruled he purposelessly ran into a fielder (who didn't have the ball) and when he did, he slightly extended his arms to push the fielder out of the way. I know this is a HTBT, but, hopefully it is understandable to what I am trying to described. After a few innings thinking about it, I mentioned to the HC that an umpire with a hair up his arse might have called malicious contact on the runner since the runner initiated contact upper body to upper body and pushed his way out of it, meaning, he extended his arms away from himself but kept alert to the run down. I know I got confused between NFHS and NCAA here with the 'malicious contact' since NCAA uses 'flagrant collision' in NCAA 8-7. But, after reading 8-7, I can't determine if this was actually anything. I think this would fall under 8-7 (a) 3 but they mostly mentioned the fielder w/wo a ball, the runner trying to dislodge the ball, or the runner in close proximity to and trying to reach a base. The fielder didn't have the ball and it was in the middle of the baseline. Its possible this is just 'unsportsmanlike.' I don't think these actions fall under 5-15 (d). So was this anything? TIA 1 Quote
Richvee Posted Monday at 12:11 AM Report Posted Monday at 12:11 AM Yes. HTBT. was the fielder in the runnner’s bae PATH? (in his line between him and the base he was going towards)…..obstruction Or did the runner veer away from his path to the base to intentionally run into the fielder? (Quite possibly interference). As far as flagrant/ malicious? Complete HTBT. You know it when you see it. Quote
SH0102 Posted Monday at 02:08 AM Report Posted Monday at 02:08 AM On 1/31/2025 at 11:47 PM, BLWizzRanger said: I worked a scrimmage game today for a local college. I was BU and had a run down between second and third. The runner went back and forth a couple of times but was eventually tagged out. Before he was though, he ran into a fielder to try drawing an obstruction call. It was a decent collision but I ruled he purposelessly ran into a fielder (who didn't have the ball) and when he did, he slightly extended his arms to push the fielder out of the way. I know this is a HTBT, but, hopefully it is understandable to what I am trying to described. After a few innings thinking about it, I mentioned to the HC that an umpire with a hair up his arse might have called malicious contact on the runner since the runner initiated contact upper body to upper body and pushed his way out of it, meaning, he extended his arms away from himself but kept alert to the run down. I know I got confused between NFHS and NCAA here with the 'malicious contact' since NCAA uses 'flagrant collision' in NCAA 8-7. But, after reading 8-7, I can't determine if this was actually anything. I think this would fall under 8-7 (a) 3 but they mostly mentioned the fielder w/wo a ball, the runner trying to dislodge the ball, or the runner in close proximity to and trying to reach a base. The fielder didn't have the ball and it was in the middle of the baseline. Its possible this is just 'unsportsmanlike.' I don't think these actions fall under 5-15 (d). So was this anything? TIA I’d be careful telling a coach “an umpire with a hair up his arse…” bc you just screwed over a fellow umpire who rules it flagrant. Must be bc he has a stick up his a$$ and not bc it was legit. As for the call, if you judge he went into the fielder to try and draw OBS that doesn’t sound like flagrant. Sounds like he wanted a free base and not giving it to him and calling him out is a sound punishment. If you judge he intended to cause harm or was reacting to previous events (temperature of the game plays a role here) you can justify flagrant and ejection , but now the coach will think it’s bc you’re a harda$$ 🤷 2 Quote
BLWizzRanger Posted Monday at 02:40 AM Author Report Posted Monday at 02:40 AM Thanks. Yes, HTBT. But, is there a specific passage that deals with this? Neither of the two mentioned above specifically addresses this situation. I understand the difference between Obs/Int. The runner initiated it and the fielder wasn't in possession of the ball trying to make a tag nor was he in the base path. The collision was significant and borderline. Since it was an intrasquad the temperature was low. And, as is mentioned above, all of the conditions play a part in whether this is called one way or the other. But it also could be that someone pissed in the umpires cornflakes that morning. Who knows? The coach understands/understood that with the atmosphere or conditions play a part in a borderline call like that. He isn't going to remember my conversation with him to think if someone had a hair up his arse - No matter what level of ball this was. Quote
SeeingEyeDog Posted Monday at 02:51 AM Report Posted Monday at 02:51 AM 1) I would recommend eliminating any verbal phrasing that suggests, "...another umpire might call this differently." in any situation at any level of baseball. 2) I would suggest...keyword: suggest (that means it may or may not be applicable)...that if any umpire is motivated to say, "...another umpire might call this differently" that may have been an indication that a different call should have been made. It's similar to when we are working the plate and the pitch is close and we start to stand up or fully stand up and then ball the pitch. The dreaded "umpire balk". That's your body, your sub-conscious, telling you it's a strike. Grab the strike. ~Dawg 1 Quote
MadMax Posted Monday at 04:55 PM Report Posted Monday at 04:55 PM On 1/31/2025 at 11:47 PM, BLWizzRanger said: I worked a scrimmage game today for a local college. As always, context. Context is key. Then you mentioned “intrasquad”, which makes it all (relatively) friendly-fire. Permit me this aside – I wish that each of you serious about umpiring would get or take the opportunity to work a MLB/MiLB spring training intrasquad “game”. Our responsibilities (as umpires) are pared down to the core fundamentals – Bs & Ks, Fair-Foul, Catch-No Catch, Safe-Out. The rest of the game basically calls itself. Obviously, you call stuff that is… blatantly obvious (and in that, you don’t have to showboat or sell the call). But these guys aren’t trying to take each other out, and they’re not trying to cheat (yet). Even on those pitching sessions that we work solo on (no baserunners, or no outfielders needed), check swing appeals are (comically) appealed to either hitting or pitching coaches, and it becomes kangaroo court. So we PUs are encouraged not to “grab” those swings. You can much more easily focus on tracking the pitch. So within the context of a scrimmage, especially an intrasquad one, there shouldn’t be any cause of conflict-needing-officiating. There shouldn’t be any malicious contact, there shouldn’t be any yelling matches, and there shouldn’t be any ejections. As such, if anything tends that way, it’s best to reserve from over-officiating, and letting the coach coach. It is perfectly acceptable and most effective – in this context – to tell the coach, “During the regular season (or, an actual game), that would likely be a malicious contact call.” I once was conducting a scrimmage (solo) for a D-1 school wherein the catcher for the maroon team (starters) was at bat, with R1 stealing, and swung thru and stepped out over the plate. Easy, easy BI call. Gold (reserves) catcher’s throw goes into CF. So I called INT (BI), sent the R1 back, and explained that the batter would be Out. Coach elected to keep the batter up there, requested that I explain to maroon catcher (batter) what it is I saw to judge BI, and we continue the at-bat. I think you handled the play, situation, and aftermath fine… for the context. Perhaps you might have framed it to “in an actual game” instead of “another umpire might/would”. 5 Quote
Replacematt Posted Tuesday at 12:08 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 12:08 AM 21 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said: 1) I would recommend eliminating any verbal phrasing that suggests, "...another umpire might call this differently." in any situation at any level of baseball. We use it at pretty high levels, and an MLB umpire has mentioned that he uses it there. I think, like all tools, it's probably a matter of time and delivery. There are few things that have that bit of latitude...steps to first, something like the OP. "I didn't have that, but it wouldn't surprise me if another umpire would." 1 1 Quote
BLWizzRanger Posted Tuesday at 04:12 AM Author Report Posted Tuesday at 04:12 AM Not to be an ass about this, I've read this thread a few times now and advice is noted. HTBT runs deep on this one. However, as originally asked, anyone have an opinion on what part of the rulebook this situation would be covered on? TIA Quote
JSam21 Posted Tuesday at 09:17 PM Report Posted Tuesday at 09:17 PM 17 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said: Not to be an ass about this, I've read this thread a few times now and advice is noted. HTBT runs deep on this one. However, as originally asked, anyone have an opinion on what part of the rulebook this situation would be covered on? TIA What exactly are you looking to be covered? The base runner running into a defender? If you don't have a flagrant collision, you don't have the runner moving more than 3' to the right or left of a direct line between their location and the base they are trying to reach, you don't have the runner intentionally interfering with a throw or thrown ball... you likely have obstruction. Quote
Richvee Posted Tuesday at 10:48 PM Report Posted Tuesday at 10:48 PM 1 hour ago, JSam21 said: If you don't have a flagrant collision, you don't have the runner moving more than 3' to the right or left of a direct line between their location and the base they are trying to reach I would look at this a little different. I'm not invoking any 3 foot rule here....There is no tag attempt being avoided. I would say, if the runner veered off his path to the bag to intentionally make contact with the fielder, I have interference. (IOW..an obvious attempt to try to draw an obstruction call, when in reality, if he just ran at the base, the fielder was not in the way) Pushing off him I wouldn't have flagrant or malicious....Lowering shoulder, throwing a forearm, malicious. 1 Quote
BLWizzRanger Posted yesterday at 03:42 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 03:42 AM 4 hours ago, Richvee said: I would look at this a little different. I'm not invoking any 3 foot rule here....There is no tag attempt being avoided. I would say, if the runner veered off his path to the bag to intentionally make contact with the fielder, I have interference. (IOW..an obvious attempt to try to draw an obstruction call, when in reality, if he just ran at the base, the fielder was not in the way) Pushing off him I wouldn't have flagrant or malicious....Lowering shoulder, throwing a forearm, malicious. Thanks Richvee. This clicks for me the most in that it is just plain interference. Under 2-51: OI is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." Although, 'make a play' might be stretching it as he finished 'attempting' the play after releasing the ball and was veering out of the way. As to the contact, I guess I was trying to find a plain malicious contact rule to justify my thought but I don't think there is one. The ones I noted above all seem to be more involved with fielding a thrown/batted ball or dislodging a ball. If a runner was running past 2nd base and just slugs the fielder standing near second. Unsportsmanlike, for sure. Maybe we can read into 'game personnel shall not use language or actions that will, in any manner, refer to or reflect negatively upon opposing players...blah blah.... intimidate or disconcert the opposing team... And to put this to rest, the Machado video going around where he stepped to his left to establish another base path is very similar in my situation. My runner stepped quickly to his right and made significant contact that would had been chest to chest if not for the fielder seeing the attempt at the last minute and trying to avoid the contact. The runner then pushed off. So, like we agreed, HTBT. 1 Quote
noumpere Posted yesterday at 12:49 PM Report Posted yesterday at 12:49 PM 9 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said: Thanks Richvee. This clicks for me the most in that it is just plain interference. Under 2-51: OI is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." Although, 'make a play' might be stretching it as he finished 'attempting' the play after releasing the ball and was veering out of the way. It's more than stretching it -- it's applying a rule where it shouldn't be applied. All the runner was doing was making it take longer for him to reach the next base. Unless it was really maliciouos (doubtful), it was nothing. 1 Quote
MadMax Posted 23 hours ago Report Posted 23 hours ago 10 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said: My runner stepped quickly to his right and made significant contact that would had been chest to chest if not for the fielder seeing the attempt at the last minute and trying to avoid the contact. The runner then pushed off. While @noumpere’s insight is the most valid and applicable, I think it warrants pointing out that you, too, noticed something untoward that could have happened. And in the context of a scrimmage, it shouldn’t (officially) escalate; or, more to the point, any escalation shouldn’t require an Official (big O) ruling / adjudication / penalty, et.al. However, this was a college scrimmage, and in a college game (actual sanctioned game), that sort of “forced or initiated contact” is just the spark 🧨 to set off a full-blown fight. And, if the act itself doesn’t spark it off, it’s often the tense engagement or ill tidings that rapidly boil up if the act isn’t called / addressed / penalized. TPTB steering College baseball are hyper-aware of how tribal and tense college baseball has become, and while they don’t want competition squelched out (notably by us, the umpires), they want us to not only be aware of it, but cognizant of it. If alarm bells 🔔 and warning lights 🚨 were lighting up your board, which it sounds like it did, then good on ya. Quote
Richvee Posted 19 hours ago Report Posted 19 hours ago 8 hours ago, noumpere said: It's more than stretching it -- it's applying a rule where it shouldn't be applied. All the runner was doing was making it take longer for him to reach the next base. Unless it was really maliciouos (doubtful), it was nothing. Here’s what I’m envisioning. Rundown in progress, let’s use 3b/Home. Throw from F5 to F2. The runner, stops about 30 feet from home, turns inside (maybe on the infield side of grass dirt line) and starts back to 3b. After F5 throws to F2, F5 moves out of R1’s path. F5 is about 15- 20 feet towards home, and in the grass in foul territory. F6 moves to cover 3B. F2 is chasing R1 back to 3B, on the fair side of the line. R1 veers left, directly at F5 who was nowhere near the runner’s path to 3B, for the sole purpose of making contact to draw an obstruction call. If you’re saying interference is a miss applied rule here, would you go with out of the basepath? (Does F2 running him back to 3B constitute a tag attempt?). I can’t see this action being nothing. Quote
BigBlue4u Posted 17 hours ago Report Posted 17 hours ago On 1/31/2025 at 8:47 PM, BLWizzRanger said: So was this anything? You are the umpire. You were there. It's a judgment call. What do YOU think? Quote
Replacematt Posted 16 hours ago Report Posted 16 hours ago 1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said: You are the umpire. You were there. It's a judgment call. What do YOU think? The question doesn't seem to be a matter of judgment. Judgment is what the umpire observes as the facts of the situation. Obviously, judgment occurred or else the details of the story couldn't have been shared. It seems that the questions are those of what rules, if any, are applicable to what has been adjudged. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.