Judging Malicious Contact

[moblue]

I'd like to ask how lenient/strict all of you are when it comes to malicious contact? Our Jr. Babe Ruth season hasn't started yet, but when it does you can bet there's a good chance the malicious contact rule will come up. Last year there was a player in my hometown ejected for mc on a play at home. I was later asked for my interpretation of the rule by the opposing team at the next game I called for them.

I said that I was very lenient on what I allowed, because the catcher is the only fielder that will intentionally block the path of the runner. If he sets up in front of home plate, he had better be expecting to get knocked over. Unless I see something extremely flagrant I'll most likely let it go.

Just wondering how some of you define it.

[BrianC14]

I'd like to ask how lenient/strict all of you are when it comes to malicious contact? Our Jr. Babe Ruth season hasn't started yet, but when it does you can bet there's a good chance the malicious contact rule will come up. Last year there was a player in my hometown ejected for mc on a play at home. I was later asked for my interpretation of the rule by the opposing team at the next game I called for them.

I said that I was very lenient on what I allowed, because the catcher is the only fielder that will intentionally block the path of the runner. If he sets up in front of home plate, he had better be expecting to get knocked over. Unless I see something extremely flagrant I'll most likely let it go.

Just wondering how some of you define it.

I define it as.... well, malicious.

It's tough to describe, but I know it when I see it.

For the record, I'm NEVER lenient when it comes to malicious contact.

Why should I be? :rollinglaugh:

[therefump]

I'd like to ask how lenient/strict all of you are when it comes to malicious contact? Our Jr. Babe Ruth season hasn't started yet, but when it does you can bet there's a good chance the malicious contact rule will come up. Last year there was a player in my hometown ejected for mc on a play at home. I was later asked for my interpretation of the rule by the opposing team at the next game I called for them.

I said that I was very lenient on what I allowed, because the catcher is the only fielder that will intentionally block the path of the runner. If he sets up in front of home plate, he had better be expecting to get knocked over. Unless I see something extremely flagrant I'll most likely let it go.

Just wondering how some of you define it.

Excellent question!

To quote what a Supreme Court Justice said about pornography in 1964 "I can't define it but I know it when I see it". (approx. quote)

This is really "our" judgement. If I suspect that there is MC that player is GONE. Explaining it to a coach after the fact is basically "Coach, I didn't like what I saw and one of the reasons I'm here is to make sure NOBODY gets hurt." :angel4:If the coach persists, give the "Ace in the Hole" and tell him it's a liability issue for you and your partner and you're not going to tolerate it. If he doesn't like that explanation then maybe he needs to watch from the parking lot.

If a coach asks in pre-game I'm going to raise the issue of why he's asking? Is he coaching for contact? :wow:If so, you can tell him he forewarned you and you'll be ESPECIALLY vigilant (which you should at that point anyway).

Basically, I want players avoiding each other. I'm very conservative meaning I'll call it over not calling it. I looked back at my notes and Haven't had an EJ in 2+ yrs on that call.:wow:

[mstaylor]

Being lenient is a bad idea. MC is a visual call, meaning that each has to be judged as it comes. If a coach asks, then he probably was on the short end of a call in another game and is trying to get you to throw another crew under the bus. Safety rules are there for a reason and we need to enforce them.

[moblue]

Actually when I was asked about it, I knew why he was asking. I was at the game where MC had been called, although I was not there at the time that particular play happened. This coach's team was on the receiving end of the contact when his catcher was mowed down at home. From what I heard, he wasn't happy about the umpire's call to eject the opposing player.

[mstaylor]

That's really odd, a coach complaining about another team's player being tossed. Not unheard of but definitely odd.

[therefump]

Nice to see everyone on the same wavelength on this post. Very unusual but good for the game.

[Tyennie]

I generally look for the hands or arms extended into the defensive player; did the base runner "dip" his shoulder or appear to "load up" prior to the contact. When contact occurs and as the sh** storm starts with the coaches, i always make it a point to check with my partner. Most of the time as a play comes to the plate we (used collectively for all PU's) get so focused on the tag/no tag we may not see what was happening just prior. There have been times my partner has said "Oh yeah, this kid started loading up halfway down the baseline"

[DonInKansas]

I generally look for the hands or arms extended into the defensive player; did the base runner "dip" his shoulder or appear to "load up" prior to the contact. When contact occurs and as the sh** storm starts with the coaches, i always make it a point to check with my partner. Most of the time as a play comes to the plate we (used collectively for all PU's) get so focused on the tag/no tag we may not see what was happening just prior. There have been times my partner has said "Oh yeah, this kid started loading up halfway down the baseline"

The only time I have ever ejected for MC it was the other way arond. A runner was coming home and slid into the base, leg extended in the dirt between the catcher's legs. The catcher had the ball well before the runner came in, and literally bashed the runner's chest with his glove with the other hand behind it. The sound the runner made trying to get his breath was almost frightening.

MC is MC. You know it when you see it.

[Umpire in Chief]

I think it was last year that defensive MC was a POE in FED.

[Stan W.]

The one thing we have to have and have to teach is to "trust your judgment"....Like refump....I dont need to be able to tell you what it is, but I have to trust my judgment that I know it when I see it....

I am not lenient on MC...

also as an aside, I think that like ejections you will never regret calling MC.........however you will regret not calling it, especially if it incurs an injury.....

[digo21]

I would say I am a little lenient as well. Here is how I look at it. If your a catcher and you are blocking the plate on purpose expect to be hit. Now if little jimmy comes running down the baseline and pulls a Brian Dawkins. He better be prepared to catch the next plane home to Denver. I feel like with something like this it is always different in every case. So even though you say "I would do this" now. when you see it may appear different to you.

[mstaylor]

I would say I am a little lenient as well. Here is how I look at it. If your a catcher and you are blocking the plate on purpose expect to be hit. Now if little jimmy comes running down the baseline and pulls a Brian Dawkins. He better be prepared to catch the next plane home to Denver. I feel like with something like this it is always different in every case. So even though you say "I would do this" now. when you see it may appear different to you.

I don't understand the Dawkins reference.

All I know is if the catcher has the ball, it is his job to block the plate. In youth baseball, NCAA down, the runner has no business rolling,crashing or doing anything else malicious to the catcher. If the catcher doesn't have the ball he has no business blocking the plate but the runner still can't crash him. It's dangerous and unsporting, and could leave you open to litigation for not enforcing the safety rules in place. I don't know that has ever happened but it is with-in the scope of possibilities.

[digo21]

I don't understand the Dawkins reference.

All I know is if the catcher has the ball, it is his job to block the plate. In youth baseball, NCAA down, the runner has no business rolling,crashing or doing anything else malicious to the catcher. If the catcher doesn't have the ball he has no business blocking the plate but the runner still can't crash him. It's dangerous and unsporting, and could leave you open to litigation for not enforcing the safety rules in place. I don't know that has ever happened but it is with-in the scope of possibilities.

The Dawkins reference refers to him coming down and trucking the catcher. If he comes running down the line and just runs into the catcher I dont see that as being MC. There is a difference between running into someone who is in your way and maliciously running into them.

[noumpere]

There is a difference between running into someone who is in your way and maliciously running into them.

Of course there is -- the former is either Obstruction or interference; the latter includes ejection. That doesn't mean you need to be "lenient" about it.

[PeteBooth]

I'd like to ask how lenient/strict all of you are when it comes to malicious contact? Our Jr. Babe Ruth season hasn't started yet, but when it does you can bet there's a good chance the malicious contact rule will come up. Last year there was a player in my hometown ejected for mc on a play at home. I was later asked for my interpretation of the rule by the opposing team at the next game I called for them.

I said that I was very lenient on what I allowed, because the catcher is the only fielder that will intentionally block the path of the runner. If he sets up in front of home plate, he had better be expecting to get knocked over. Unless I see something extremely flagrant I'll most likely let it go.

Just wondering how some of you define it.

You said Babe Ruth which I believe is OBR based so they most likely have their OWN house rule for MC.

Generally speaking MC is an act on the part of one individual which is meant to cause HARM to another individual whether they meant to or not.

Example: R1 slides into second base with spikes raised HIGH and contacts F4/F6. Perhaps all R1 was trying to do is break up a DP HOWEVER, the act of raising spikes in the air and contacting F4/F6 is intent to injure espcially with spikes raised and the fielder is in a vulnerable position.

As others mentioned there is NO LENIENCY for MC otherwise the game will turn into a nightmare.

because the catcher is the only fielder that will intentionally block the path of the runner. If he sets up in front of home plate, he had better be expecting to get knocked over.

WRONG WRONG - The umpires should be calling OBS if F2 sets up ahead of time and blocks home plate without the ball ala PRO ball. If your umpires would start calling OBS for such acts it would cut down on R3 intentionally knocking over F2.

Remember this is youth baseball.

Pete Booth

[moblue]

You said Babe Ruth which I believe is OBR based so they most likely have their OWN house rule for MC.

They do. I should have posted that earlier, but here is their rule:

CONTACT RULE (ALL DIVISIONS) - If a runner attempting to reach home plate intentionally and maliciously runs into a defensive player in the area of home plate, he will be called out on the play and ejected from the game. The objective of this is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner for the obvious purpose of crashing the defensive player, rather than trying to reach home plate. Obviously, this is an umpire's judgement call.

To my knowledge this is the only place in the Jr. Babe Ruth rulebook where MC is addressed. That doesn't mean I wouldn't take action if I saw it somewhere else on the field. I like your 2nd base example Mr. Booth.

Until recently, the only argument you could expect to hear on contact at home was "He has to slide!" from the DC. The response was always "No he does not." Now umpires can expect to hear coaches shouting for MC.

[digo21]

Of course there is -- the former is either Obstruction or interference; the latter includes ejection. That doesn't mean you need to be "lenient" about it.

When I said lenient I meant about the ejection part.

[digo21]

When I said lenient I meant about the ejection part.

Look at it like this, r3 is coming home catcher is blocking the plate r3 unintentionally runs into F2, while F2 does not have the ball nor is it in the immediate area of play. You would obviously have obstruction on F2 but if R3 makes it home then their is no obstruction. This is why like I said before it seems to be a HTBT situation. An umpire after all can not look everywhere at once.