Obstruction and malicious contact

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

When nothing flagrant or malicious happens, why would anyone be ejected?

I agree. But they ejected a runner who did not do anything flagrant or malicious to a catcher who did not have the ball and violated the Collision rule and Obstruction rule.

"Flagrant Collision SECTION 31. A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7).

The catcher put himself in position to have a collision. The runner, first impulse trying to score, finds a catcher standing in the way. He decides too late to slide, a slide which would have maybe not even got him to HP but which would have taken the catcher's ankles out, so he breaks down late and uses his arms to prevent upper body contact. He also could have deviated but I don't think any NCAA coach has run training drills about how to draw an OBS call when a fielder is illegally obstructing you. There is no rule justification for an ejection for that runner in the NCAA rules. If you have cites on their website that add ejection for a Flagrant Collision between a catcher obstructing without the ball and a runner failing to slide let me know. And also let me know if the slide has to be legal in reaching the base or before he contacts a catcher up the line where the slide would not take the runner to HP. The catcher blocking the plate without a need was the cause of this. Yes the throw might have given us a fielding the throw exemption but most likely he was there from the getgo. But he didn't have the ball and the runner was not trying to dislodge it

[grayhawk]

15 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

But they ejected a runner who did not do anything flagrant or malicious to a catcher who did not have the ball and violated the Collision rule and Obstruction rule.

 

I think the catcher being knocked violently on his back by a runner who made an illegal slide (no leg or buttock on the ground before contact) is an excellent example of an avoidable flagrant collision.

[jimurrayalterego]

24 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I think the catcher being knocked violently on his back by a runner who made an illegal slide (no leg or buttock on the ground before contact) is an excellent example of an avoidable flagrant collision.

The runner was breaking down. He should have been trained to slide or avoid a catcher who should have not set up in his basepath but apparently might have been doing that all season long and getting away with it. I don't see where the runner violated the definition of Flagrant Collision but I'm asking for NCAA interps that still eject over collisions where the runner decides too late and collides with an obstructing catcher who is actually violating the collision rule. 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I agree. But they ejected a runner who did not do anything flagrant or malicious to a catcher who did not have the ball and violated the Collision rule and Obstruction rule.

"Flagrant Collision SECTION 31. A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7).

The catcher put himself in position to have a collision. The runner, first impulse trying to score, finds a catcher standing in the way. He decides too late to slide, a slide which would have maybe not even got him to HP but which would have taken the catcher's ankles out, so he breaks down late and uses his arms to prevent upper body contact. He also could have deviated but I don't think any NCAA coach has run training drills about how to draw an OBS call when a fielder is illegally obstructing you. There is no rule justification for an ejection for that runner in the NCAA rules. If you have cites on their website that add ejection for a Flagrant Collision between a catcher obstructing without the ball and a runner failing to slide let me know. And also let me know if the slide has to be legal in reaching the base or before he contacts a catcher up the line where the slide would not take the runner to HP. The catcher blocking the plate without a need was the cause of this. Yes the throw might have given us a fielding the throw exemption but most likely he was there from the getgo. But he didn't have the ball and the runner was not trying to dislodge it

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about what I've already stated.

Avoidable forcible contact above the waist is MC. The runner had over 5 strides to decide what to do in reaction to where the catcher was.

[BLWizzRanger]

8 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The runner was breaking down. He should have been trained to slide or avoid a catcher who should have not set up in his basepath but apparently might have been doing that all season long and getting away with it. I don't see where the runner violated the definition of Flagrant Collision but I'm asking for NCAA interps that still eject over collisions where the runner decides too late and collides with an obstructing catcher who is actually violating the collision rule. 

Late to the game here but I don't see how you can have anything but a MC here - deciding in real time that it was ( at least mentally enough to go to review).  Plus, his actions after the contacted the catcher was a 'macho' celebration.  It wasn't a subdued one where he might have checked to see if the F2 was ok.  (I only bring this up because if we are to analyze a hit by pitch after the fact, then why can't we use it in this situation?)

[Velho]

12 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Flagrant Collision SECTION 31. A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7).

IMO, R3 initiated the collision with the intent to dislodge the ball he assumed F2 was going to have possession of.

I'd love to see clearer language (no surprise there) but don't think language engineering is appropriate here. For whether deadball assistance is a warning or an out, fine (begrudgingly), but not for MC. 

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Avoidable forcible contact above the waist is MC. The runner had over 5 strides to decide what to do in reaction to where the catcher was.

I think that may be the piece you are looking for, @jimurrayalterego.  I was posted a while back, but NCAA issued that definition, and this certainly meets that definition.  Intent is irrelevant.  Making that contact is, by NCAA definition, malicious.

13 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The runner was breaking down. He should have been trained to slide or avoid a catcher who should have not set up in his basepath but apparently might have been doing that all season long and getting away with it. I don't see where the runner violated the definition of Flagrant Collision but I'm asking for NCAA interps that still eject over collisions where the runner decides too late and collides with an obstructing catcher who is actually violating the collision rule. 

The runner was "breaking down" but far too late.  Yes, F2 put himself in that position, but that does NOT give the runner a free shot.  That is exactly what the rules are attempting to prevent.

I'm not a big Jomboy fan, but his video is interesting when he gets to breaking down slides.

 

[Velho]

30 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

'm not a big Jomboy fan, but his video is interesting when he gets to breaking down slides.

I'm less a fan of late since I feel he's mailing some of them in. This is one of the older style. Deeper dive in earnest. Well worth watching, even for us umps.

[urout17]

On 5/31/2025 at 5:57 PM, Richvee said:

and I'm supposed to make a decision after one look live in a Juco or D3 game. 

And you'll have multiple ejections for sure.

[Replacematt]

19 minutes ago, urout17 said:

And you'll have multiple ejections for sure.

Honestly, I think if we get this on the field, it lowers the chances of that, especially if we can go to review.