MC Rule Execution on dead ball

[HumblePie]

FED Game.  R1.  No outs.

Runner is off with the pitch.  Pitcher balks (stop/start).  Umpires call "Time!"

Horsing around, F4 slaps a fake tag on R1, and R1, who doesn't take kindly to it, knocks him on his arse.

Umpires announce the Obstruction on F4 and give a team warning, but since the ball was dead and R1 was going to advance on the balk, there is no Obstruction penalty.

Umpires then eject R1 for Malicious Conduct and call him out, reminding the coach that MC trumps Obstruction.

Offensive Coach actually agrees with the ejection, but challenges that R1 cannot be called out since the ball was already dead on the balk.

Umpires confirm that R1 is out, citing that the Rules Book doesn't stipulate that the ball must be live, and that any runner who commits MC is ejected and also called out ... with one exception ... a runner who has already scored.

Who's correct?

[grayhawk]

The umpires were incorrect for ejecting for MC. This should have been an unsportsmanlike ejection for fighting. Eject R1 and enter a substitute.

[HumblePie]

3 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

The umpires were incorrect for ejecting for MC. This should have been an unsportsmanlike ejection for fighting. Eject R1 and enter a substitute.

OK ... and I follow your line of reasoning here ... but is it stated anywhere in the rules book that you can't have MC under a dead ball?  I don't believe it is.  That's a large thing to assume.  We deal with the same thing in basketball, when certain fouls can't be called when the ball is dead.

[JSam21]

26 minutes ago, HumblePie said:

OK ... and I follow your line of reasoning here ... but is it stated anywhere in the rules book that you can't have MC under a dead ball?  I don't believe it is.  That's a large thing to assume.  We deal with the same thing in basketball, when certain fouls can't be called when the ball is dead.

Because this doesn't qualify as malicious contact. IF you want to lump pushing, shoving, throwing punches, etc. under malicious contact, then there is no point of having the fight rules. 

Malicious contact is grouped with the interference rule... we can't call interference during a dead ball since there is no play to be interfered with. That is why @grayhawk is correct with his ruling. 

[HumblePie]

52 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Because this doesn't qualify as malicious contact. IF you want to lump pushing, shoving, throwing punches, etc. under malicious contact, then there is no point of having the fight rules. 

Malicious contact is grouped with the interference rule... we can't call interference during a dead ball since there is no play to be interfered with. That is why @grayhawk is correct with his ruling. 

Got it. Thank you both.

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Because this doesn't qualify as malicious contact. IF you want to lump pushing, shoving, throwing punches, etc. under malicious contact, then there is no point of having the fight rules. 

Malicious contact is grouped with the interference rule... we can't call interference during a dead ball since there is no play to be interfered with. That is why @grayhawk is correct with his ruling. 

 

I'm not disagreeing, just asking for some help on this one . . . 

Can you point me to the differences between malicious contact, unsportsmanlike conduct, and fight rules?  

I get where you are headed with MC being lumped in with the interference rules, but the book explicitly says the defense can be guilty of MC.

I thought we had a book definition of MC, but I appear to be wrong on that (or bad at my research today).

[BigBlue4u]

7 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm not disagreeing, just asking for some help on this one . . . 

Can you point me to the differences between malicious contact, unsportsmanlike conduct, and fight rules?  

I get where you are headed with MC being lumped in with the interference rules, but the book explicitly says the defense can be guilty of MC.

I thought we had a book definition of MC, but I appear to be wrong on that (or bad at my research today).

If it will be of help, 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.

 From what I understand, California has submitted a definition to the NFHS rules committee on numerous occasions without success.

 

[HumblePie]

I believe the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact still uses the phrase, "if the contact is malicious or intentional" .....

I don't think you can have malice without intent, which makes the above phrase very poorly worded, which unfortunately, is common in the  FED book ... an ironic fact being that the committees are all made up of supposed educators. 

ma·li·cious

/məˈliSHəs/

adjective

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

If you agree with the Oxford definition, then we can have intentional contact, which is not malicious.  And sticking with the example California gives, a  runner who tries to slap away the ball but inadvertently slaps the fielder who jukes him, should always be guilty of interference, but not likely guilty of malicious contact, if he did no real harm and intended no harm.  And a defender who overzealously tags a runner and knocks him down, but clearly didn't intend to hurt him, did not necessarily show malice.

I have long lobbied for a "middle ground" infraction called Reckless Contact.  I would penalize it in exactly the same way as malicious contact without the ejection - but issue a team warning, just like with a fake tag.

A very real example of why I hate the FED definition is, anytime a runner coming home sees that he's going to collide or slide, and he chooses not to slide, but raises his hands to defend himself from the collision, you have a large percentage of officials who interpret the raising of the hands to be a malicious act.  If he doesn't lower the shoulder and hit the catcher like a linebacker, he's not trying to harm, he's trying to minimize the damage to himself. 

If his act of raising his hands in any way affects an ensuing play, then we have tools ... It's Interference.  No need to kick the kid out of the game and the next two games for what I still would describe as incidental contact.

[JSam21]

The NFHS just needs to define what Malicious Contact is. NCAA does a good job with it, and it seems CA has taken its definition from the NCAA. Excessive, flagrant, and avoidable contact or contact initated by the runner above the waist in an attempt to dislodge the ball.  

Actually got into a debate with another umpire during a training session I was leading when it came to Malicious Contact under the NFHS code. He stated that any collision that the runner didn't try to avoid was grounds for it being called. They went as far as saying that a runner must avoid making contact "at all costs". I countered with the rule doesn't say that and by using their thought process, a defender could step in front of a base runner at the last second to draw malicious contact since it would supersede the obstruction by rule. "Do we really want defenders attempting to draw calls like that? Are we really going to punish runners for unavoidable collisions that they didn't create?" Both of those questions that I posed drew silence from that member. 

[HumblePie]

Greatest example of "incidental contact" in MLB history???   🌹🌹🌹

[grayhawk]

NFHS did define MC in it's 2014 Rules Interpretations. Why they never put it in the rule book, nobody knows.

Contact or a collision is considered to be malicious if:

The contact is the result of intentional excessive force;
The contact occurs close to the bag or home plate or above the waist of the receiving player; or
There was intent to injure.
Malicious contact can occur without these conditions if determined by the umpire, but these provide a starting point.

[BigBlue4u]

On 2/3/2026 at 8:33 AM, JSam21 said:

OK ... and I follow your line of reasoning here ... but is it stated anywhere in the rules book that you can't have MC under a dead ball?  I don't believe it is.  That's a large thing to assume.  We deal with the same thing in basketball, when certain fouls can't be called when the ball is dead.

Well, we are not going to let something like that go just because the ball is dead.  How about 3-3-1-f-4?

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, grayhawk said:

NFHS did define MC in it's 2014 Rules Interpretations. Why they never put it in the rule book, nobody knows.

Contact or a collision is considered to be malicious if:

The contact is the result of intentional excessive force;
The contact occurs close to the bag or home plate or above the waist of the receiving player; or
There was intent to injure.
Malicious contact can occur without these conditions if determined by the umpire, but these provide a starting point.

Thank you, @grayhawk.  I was thinking it had been out there somewhere, as the whole "above the waist" phrase kept sticking in my mind.  I was beginning to think maybe I pulled that from another code, so I didn't float it in my post.

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, HumblePie said:

A very real example of why I hate the FED definition is, anytime a runner coming home sees that he's going to collide or slide, and he chooses not to slide, but raises his hands to defend himself from the collision, you have a large percentage of officials who interpret the raising of the hands to be a malicious act.  If he doesn't lower the shoulder and hit the catcher like a linebacker, he's not trying to harm, he's trying to minimize the damage to himself. 

If his act of raising his hands in any way affects an ensuing play, then we have tools ... It's Interference.  No need to kick the kid out of the game and the next two games for what I still would describe as incidental contact.

 

We've been down this road before, but raising your arms and bracing for a collision is instinctual.  What we should be watching for is what happens next: either the arms act as shock absorbers and take the impact (legal), or he unloads (illegal). 

I've had to make that explanation to coaches both ways (ejected and no penalty) and have never had an argument when explaining it that way.

FWIW, I would call "incidental" contact and "instinctual" contact two different things.   

[834k3r]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

We've been down this road before, but raising your arms and bracing for a collision is instinctual.  What we should be watching for is what happens next: either the arms act as shock absorbers and take the impact (legal), or he unloads (illegal). 

I've had to make that explanation to coaches both ways (ejected and no penalty) and have never had an argument when explaining it that way.

FWIW, I would call "incidental" contact and "instinctual" contact two different things.   

I concur. I would also opine that there's a lot of HTBT in the OP. Knocking F4 "on his arse" may or may not be MC for NFHS--but it would depend upon a lot of things that would only be seen in person.

[JSam21]

20 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Well, we are not going to let something like that go just because the ball is dead.  How about 3-3-1-f-4?

I'm not sure why I was tagged. I never said that we would let it slide. I just said that using Malicious Contact would be the incorrect rule to use. 

[HumblePie]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

I concur. I would also opine that there's a lot of HTBT in the OP. Knocking F4 "on his arse" may or may not be MC for NFHS--but it would depend upon a lot of things that would only be seen in person.

The OP clearly describes a petty but retaliatory (intentional) act  after a fake tag during a dead ball. If he ends up on the ground, I don't think you HTBT.  😎

[The Man in Blue]

FWIW, there is no fake tag during a dead ball.

Taking @834k3r's statement a bit further, there is always a big element of HTBT on these plays.  Sometimes though, the optics can change what has to be done.

One of the worst collisions I ever had was the result of the catcher moving up the line for the tag (legal), a "country big boy" runner bracing (legal), and the catcher tripping (legal).  It wasn't going to be pretty, but the trip propelled the catcher and took away his ability to check up.  I did end up ejecting the runner, because he hopped up and flexed over the catcher.  Of course, I spoke with the coach at the moment, but what was more interesting was the player coming to talk to me afterwards. 

I explained to him that I knew he was bracing and checking up, and I knew the catcher tripped.  I knew it was not malicious or intentional, even though it looked bad.  I told him I already knew I wasn't going to toss anybody after the collision.  The problem was the taunting afterwards which altered the optics of the whole thing . . . he totally understood I had to at that point.

Back to the OP . . . so what are you calling a "fake tag".  Was it light horseplay?  Or was it rougher and something that understandably offended (I'm not saying was justified)?  I'm not excusing the runner in any way.  I'm trying to figure out if the fielder needed to go, too, or if it was a "did you learn your lesson not to do that for this exact reason?".  

One issue we have at the amateur level is we do not know the history between teams or players.  Did these guys have a history?  Once had an incident that resulted in an ejected coach and a forfeited game (refused to leave, no ACs).  Afterwards a parent approached us and the site director "in the parking lot dressing room" to tell us, "Oh yeah, we played them last week (3 states over) and the cops had to be called."  Damn, I wish we had HURs.

[HumblePie]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

FWIW, there is no fake tag during a dead ball.

Except if a defensive player slaps a fake tag on an offensive player while there is still action, and in fact, perhaps neither player even knows yet that the ball is dead, there absolutely is a fake tag, and NFHS would absolutely expect it to be punished (team warning) mostly according to the Penalty under a live ball. The only difference is, there would be no obstruction award.

I  should not have to state this, but it's a safety issue, and nfhs creates more safety rules than all other rules combined.

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Taking @834k3r's statement a bit further, there is always a big element of HTBT on these plays.  Sometimes though, the optics can change what has to be done.

One of the worst collisions I ever had was the result of the catcher moving up the line for the tag (legal), a "country big boy" runner bracing (legal), and the catcher tripping (legal).  It wasn't going to be pretty, but the trip propelled the catcher and took away his ability to check up.  I did end up ejecting the runner, because he hopped up and flexed over the catcher.  Of course, I spoke with the coach at the moment, but what was more interesting was the player coming to talk to me afterwards. 

I explained to him that I knew he was bracing and checking up, and I knew the catcher tripped.  I knew it was not malicious or intentional, even though it looked bad.  I told him I already knew I wasn't going to toss anybody after the collision.  The problem was the taunting afterwards which altered the optics of the whole thing . . . he totally understood I had to at that point.

Back to the OP . . . so what are you calling a "fake tag".  Was it light horseplay?  Or was it rougher and something that understandably offended (I'm not saying was justified)?  I'm not excusing the runner in any way.  I'm trying to figure out if the fielder needed to go, too, or if it was a "did you learn your lesson not to do that for this exact reason?". 

This is hypothetical.

What the fielder did was a fake tag, nothing malicious to harm, nothing really to taunt, just a fake tag.  The runner took offense to it and knocked him down.

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, HumblePie said:

I did end up ejecting the runner, because he hopped up and flexed over the catcher.

And, would the correct assumption be that the runner was ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct and not for malicious contact?

[The Man in Blue]

On 2/7/2026 at 12:36 PM, HumblePie said:

Except if a defensive player slaps a fake tag on an offensive player while there is still action, and in fact, perhaps neither player even knows yet that the ball is dead, there absolutely is a fake tag, and NFHS would absolutely expect it to be punished (team warning) mostly according to the Penalty under a live ball. The only difference is, there would be no obstruction award.

I  should not have to state this, but it's a safety issue, and nfhs creates more safety rules than all other rules combined.

This is hypothetical.

What the fielder did was a fake tag, nothing malicious to harm, nothing really to taunt, just a fake tag.  The runner took offense to it and knocked him down.

 

I agree that I would still warn the fielder . . . but no fake tag occurred.  Once the ball is dead, it doesn't occur any more than the home run happens after the balk.

Just as we are saying the runner's actions are not malicious contact, but rather unsportsmanlike conduct, so is the fielder's action not a fake tag, but unsportsmanlike conduct.  We are arguing semantics, not outcomes or reasons.

We don't know the fielder's actions were not malicious.  They might not have been.  They might have been.  HTBT or need more info from the OP.  If the fielder hauled off and "fake tagged" him in the face, I would consider that to be somewhat malicious.  If the fielder just put a glove out and touched him in the gut, then "grow up, kid."

If the runner took offense, as told, I tend to believe it was a bit more than "grow up, kid."  It may not have been much worse, but it wasn't nothing.  Or maybe it was and the runner is just one of those kids.  Point is, we don't know.

[johnnyg08]

I like the term 'excessive contact' for that reason. Malice/malicious w/o a definition is not a good term.