Malicious Contact?

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
On a head first slide into home what does the runner need to do for it to be considered malicious?

Bite the catcher.

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
Second, I know that an umpire can change their ejection call before they leave the game...

Really? Where do they do this?

I know I've only done this for 30 years at levels from Frosh to Pro, but I've never seen an umpire change an ejection.

This was a point of emphasis a few years back at our interpretations meeting. Are you saying that there is no such thing?

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
This was a point of emphasis a few years back at our interpretations meeting. Are you saying that there is no such thing?

With the caveat that like others,my memory is not infallible, I do not recall an official FED POE on changing ejection calls in the past, oh, 30 years. I've just gone through my rule books for the past five years and find nothing close to that.

That's not to say your state may not have done such a thing, but I can't imagine why.

This was in Connecticut. Not sure if it was/is a state rule. I believe it became a point of emphasis back then because a couple players were ejected on emotion and misunderstanding where cooler heads prevailed afterward.

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
This was in Connecticut. Not sure if it was/is a state rule. I believe it became a point of emphasis back then because a couple players were ejected on emotion and misunderstanding where cooler heads prevailed afterward.

There is no basis in rule that I can find for an "un-ejection."

Just to clarify, the player was/is never allowed to reenter the game but instead was/can be determined to just have been restricted to the bench therefore allowed to play in the next game.

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
Just to clarify, the player was/is never allowed to reenter the game but instead was/can be determined to just have been restricted to the bench therefore allowed to play in the next game.

Still....no basis in rule.

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
On a head first slide into home what does the runner need to do for it to be considered malicious? Second, I know that an umpire can change their ejection call before they leave the game(changing the fact that a player will need to sit out the next game) but can they do that if a player was ejected for malicious contact?
(You can probably tell what happened in our game today)

1.
He must fail to attempt to avoid F2.
He must try and knock the ball loose.
He must lower the shoulder and head into F2.
He must throw a forearm shiver to F2.
Not in order, nor must they be all inclusive.

2.
I would hope not, if the ejection isn't waranted then don't eject in the first place.

The rule's are pretty clear, diving or running, you better be trying to get around and not through. And a violation is ejection. Umpires don't know nor care, about follow on punishments just enforce the rule.

As a NFHS rules interpreter for some years I have never heard of a POE on "unejecting" a player........quite the contrary, I only found state POE reminding umpires that it is not permissible to neglect to report ejections to the state to avoid any next game suspension penalty...

In 20+ years I have never unejected any participant...........nor have I ever regreted an ejection....I have at times looked back and felt I should have ejected a participant, yet for some reason I didnt...

As a trainer, I am always on the look out for candidates with itchy trigger fingers.......and effort to give them extra guidance on ejections....baseball is a passionate game and having control of the emotions and the flow of the game are an umpires advantage....

quote:

As a NFHS rules interpreter for some years I have never heard of a POE on "unejecting" a player........quite the contrary, I only found state POE reminding umpires that it is not permissible to neglect to report ejections to the state to avoid any next game suspension penalty...

We had an incident at a game yesterday where a player was restricted to the bench for "equipment abuse". The umpire clearly stated as such. Does that qualify as an ejection and mean the player will sit out the next game? Is there a way to check and see if it was reported?

Restriction to the dugout is not an ejection and is not reported.....and does not carry over to any other game....

That is the reason for the restriction penalty.....penalize the behavior that did not warrent an ejection for this game, but with no lingering effects...

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
On a head first slide into home what does the runner need to do for it to be considered malicious? Second, I know that an umpire can change their ejection call before they leave the game(changing the fact that a player will need to sit out the next game) but can they do that if a player was ejected for malicious contact?
(You can probably tell what happened in our game today)

Your questions make me think you're a coach/fan/parent as opposed to an official. So your definition of a "head first slide" may be different than the average umpire's.
I define it as sliding on the ground, head first. Not going in head first to eventally hit the ground, but contacting F2 prior to that(which is what the malicious ejection was probably called on).

You can't retsrict a player to the bench except in one situation and that is being a illegal sub. You can restrict the coach and/or manager for a variety of reasons, not so for players. If he isn't isn't an illegal sub then he gets ejected. Now if there is no other method to contain a minor then leave him on the bench but he is still ejected.

I'm still not sure if its a state or league/board rule but we definetly have a rule (fed) that allows an umpire who ejects a player the opportunity to withdraw/change the ejection status before he leaves the field following a game. (thus changing the player's status for the following game) Has anyone out there heard of or have such a rule?

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
I'm still not sure if its a state or league/board rule but we definetly have a rule (fed) that allows an umpire who ejects a player the opportunity to withdraw/change the ejection status before he leaves the field following a game. (thus changing the player's status for the following game) Has anyone out there heard of or have such a rule?

Sounds like a misguided local policy. All it does is put pressure on an umpire to change a call simply becuase "he can." In the nine states I have worked I have never run into such nonsense.

Got to be a local thing. We used to have an option in youth s****r to make the player sit the next game on a red card. I made most sit, rarely was there a reason not to.
I did have a double red on a fight that I made one sit and not the other. The aggresser sat, the other kid just defended himself so he didn't. Surprisingly the mother wanted me arrested for breaking up the fight. She claimed I choked her son.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
You can't retsrict a player to the bench except in one situation and that is being a illegal sub. You can restrict the coach and/or manager for a variety of reasons, not so for players. If he isn't isn't an illegal sub then he gets ejected. Now if there is no other method to contain a minor then leave him on the bench but he is still ejected.

Really? Well this player was restricted for "abusing equipment" when he threw a bat. He was not ejected, did not have to miss the next game, etc. Just restricted to the bench for the remainder of that one game.

quote:

Originally posted by PReese:
Really? Well this player was restricted for "abusing equipment" when he threw a bat. He was not ejected, did not have to miss the next game, etc. Just restricted to the bench for the remainder of that one game.

Why the incredulity? Mr. Taylor was pointing out that if this is the case, a rule was improperly used.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:

quote:

Originally posted by Tangents23:
On a head first slide into home what does the runner need to do for it to be considered malicious? Second, I know that an umpire can change their ejection call before they leave the game(changing the fact that a player will need to sit out the next game) but can they do that if a player was ejected for malicious contact?
(You can probably tell what happened in our game today)

He must fail to attempt to avoid F2.
He must try and knock the ball loose.
He must lower the shoulder and head into F2.
He must throw a forearm shiver to F2.
Not in order, nor must they be all inclusive.

2.
I would hope not, if the ejection isn't waranted then don't eject in the first place.

The rule's are pretty clear, diving or running, you better be trying to get around and not through. And a violation is ejection. Umpires don't know nor care, about follow on punishments just enforce the rule.

1.Malicious Contact?, on a head first slide at home? Not possible gentlemen unless the runner leaped into the catcher which is of course not a slide at all. "Knocking the ball loose", "Lowering the shoulder", "Throwing a shoulder" Pretty hard thing to do when you are in a head first slide, so we can definetly rule those 3 possibilities out. Sliding is the best way for a runner to avoid a Malicious Contact Call, (unless the Umpire felt the runner was attemptnig to purposly "SPIKE" the catcher), and we can rule that out as well seeing how this was a head first slide. The only thing I can come up with is the Umpire must have felt that the runner had extreemly long fingernails.

1.Malicious Contact on a headfirst slide at home? Terrible call Mr. Umpire, shame on you !!!

Umpiring LL and Babe Ruth for many years in Orlando and never used a ruling allowing an ejected palyer to stay in the dugout. Equipment abuse whether on the field (throwing helmets-bats), or in the dugout (throwing gloves-hitting the water cooler-kicking fences)results in an ejection and any player ejected is also out for the folowing game. the warning to both manager's is given at the plate meeting pre-game.

Using the FHSAA rule on runing into the catcher; the runner must make an attempt to avoid a collision with the catcher even if it meanss surrendering on the play at home. Running over the catcher whether it is a hard slide or standing up if deemed intentional by the umpire results in an ejection.

Upon any ejection the player must leave the field and may the surrounding stands and is suspended for the next game.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
Umpiring LL and Babe Ruth for many years in Orlando and never used a ruling allowing an ejected palyer to stay in the dugout. Equipment abuse whether on the field (throwing helmets-bats), or in the dugout (throwing gloves-hitting the water cooler-kicking fences)results in an ejection and any player ejected is also out for the folowing game. the warning to both manager's is given at the plate meeting pre-game.

Using the FHSAA rule on runing into the catcher; the runner must make an attempt to avoid a collision with the catcher even if it meanss surrendering on the play at home. Running over the catcher whether it is a hard slide or standing up if deemed intentional by the umpire results in an ejection.

Upon any ejection the player must leave the field and may the surrounding stands and is suspended for the next game.

There is a big difference in "lowering your shoulder and bringing your forearm thru the catchers neck" and "a head first slide" or do you have no common sense. Let's face it, catchers place themselves 3 feet up the foul line "Blocking the plate" and Umpires are not calling Obstruction on the catcher, no, they are calling "Malicious Contact" on runners who slide in home head first??? Thats Terrible! This rule was written to protect catchers from injury from those infamous "take him out" plays at home, not from a player sliding head first. Basically what you are doing is, taking the base path away from the runner, and allowing the catcher to "block and obstruct home plate. Whatever happened to BASEBALL.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by PReese:
Really? Well this player was restricted for "abusing equipment" when he threw a bat. He was not ejected, did not have to miss the next game, etc. Just restricted to the bench for the remainder of that one game.

Why the incredulity? Mr. Taylor was pointing out that if this is the case, a rule was improperly used.

I knew when they added the rule where you restrict for being an illegal sub some guys were going to parlay it into using it to restrict for other reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
Umpiring LL and Babe Ruth for many years in Orlando and never used a ruling allowing an ejected palyer to stay in the dugout. Equipment abuse whether on the field (throwing helmets-bats), or in the dugout (throwing gloves-hitting the water cooler-kicking fences)results in an ejection and any player ejected is also out for the folowing game. the warning to both manager's is given at the plate meeting pre-game.

Using the FHSAA rule on runing into the catcher; the runner must make an attempt to avoid a collision with the catcher even if it meanss surrendering on the play at home. Running over the catcher whether it is a hard slide or standing up if deemed intentional by the umpire results in an ejection.

Upon any ejection the player must leave the field and may the surrounding stands and is suspended for the next game.

Are you saying that on a feet first slide that is legal except he cuts the legs out from under the catcher is ejectable?

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
Umpiring LL and Babe Ruth for many years in Orlando and never used a ruling allowing an ejected palyer to stay in the dugout. Equipment abuse whether on the field (throwing helmets-bats), or in the dugout (throwing gloves-hitting the water cooler-kicking fences)results in an ejection and any player ejected is also out for the folowing game. the warning to both manager's is given at the plate meeting pre-game.

Using the FHSAA rule on runing into the catcher; the runner must make an attempt to avoid a collision with the catcher even if it meanss surrendering on the play at home. Running over the catcher whether it is a hard slide or standing up if deemed intentional by the umpire results in an ejection.

Upon any ejection the player must leave the field and may the surrounding stands and is suspended for the next game.

This is contrary to FED's policy and common sense. You guys won't allow a 14 year old to remain under supervision in the dugout. Unimaginable.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I knew when they added the rule where you restrict for being an illegal sub some guys were going to parlay it into using it to restrict for other reasons.

I haven't seen a deliberate extension of this rule in the games I've worked; rather, in a few cases, umpires confusing the relatively new idea of restricting of staff with what was ejectable for players.

The big issue, in my mind, is the mandatory application of some consequences in certain situations (mandatory warning, mandatory ejection, mandatory restriction) and discretion in others. This is what gets FED umpires confused.

I don't see why this should be confusing, it seems it is, but I don't know why. I have seen it happen locally so I know it happens.
A HS umpire may restrict a player for being an illegal sub and only for that. They can't apply it for any other offense or try to avoid an extra game suspension. The coaching staff may be retstricted for any offense that could be ejectable but the umpire feels doesn't reach the severity of an ejection.
I can think of one instance where I could have restricted a manager but I didn't. I am old school enough that if you do something ejectable you get ejected.

C'mon Guys;

You are all experienced umpires here and I believe you all know what is a "malicious" attempt to take a player out (at any base) and just a hard slide whether feet first or head first. Defining a malicious attempt is purely a judgement call by an umpire/umpire crew and I think we all know it when we see it.

As for catcher's up the line, who cares, so long as they are in fair or foul territory giving the runner a clear lane to the base before the catcher has "possession of the ball." Every coach who has someone thrown out at the plate wants the obstruction call....what else is new?

As for the reply on having an "ejected" player be allowed to stay in the dugout.....absolutely no way that is going to happen in the leagues here. What good is served there. Ejected players, coaches, and fans by the umpires require leaving the playing field immediately.

Caoches are allowed by rule to remove a player from the game for discipline and they are allowed to sit in the dugout. Maybe that is what you were speaking of.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
As for the reply on having an "ejected" player be allowed to stay in the dugout.....absolutely no way that is going to happen in the leagues here. What good is served there. Ejected players, coaches, and fans by the umpires require leaving the playing field immediately.

Caoches are allowed by rule to remove a player from the game for discipline and they are allowed to sit in the dugout. Maybe that is what you were speaking of.

No. What I am speaking to is my absolute amazement and doubt that any statewide organization affiliated with NFHS would invite the liability that would accompany forcing an underage youth to leave the supervision provided by the school at an interscholastic activity. Effin' incredible, completely irresponsible, and contrary to FED policy.

Kid gets hit by a car on his way home when he could have still been with his coach. Your state really wants to open itself up to that?

I've sent an email to the Justin Harrison of the Florida group to confirm that they are really that stupid. I'll post what he replies.

As for ejecting fans, no rules code of which I'm familiar, Bob Davidson not withstanding, gives that authority to umpires. Rather they specfically do not extend that authority to umpires.

We are under specific guidelines when ejecting during a Fed event. If it is the home team the ejected player goes to the school. If the visitors, they go to the bus or stay in the team area. In our area softball/baseball teams ride together so the bus isn't always at the site. If it isn't you have to leave the player in the team area. However, any further interaction with said player will cause his coach to leave and he can babysit him somewhere. What you can't do is cut a kid loose with no supervision anymore than a coach just letting a kid leave on his own. If he comes on a bus, that's how he leaves.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
A HS umpire may restrict a player for being an illegal sub and only for that. They can't apply it for any other offense or try to avoid an extra game suspension.

Unless state rules state otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
A HS umpire may restrict a player for being an illegal sub and only for that. They can't apply it for any other offense or try to avoid an extra game suspension.

Unless state rules state otherwise.

Do you know those that do?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Do you know those that do?

Personally, no. But I could see a state saying "We won't eject for this, we'll just restrict."

This is Missouri's rule for ejections:
Player:
1. Player is removed from game and must remain in the team's dugout.
2. Should ejected player continue to create a disturbance, the game shall be forfeited.

quote:

Reply

NC may, they nhave their own version of ejections. They have two stages of ejections, one is a normal ejection for things not unsporting. Then they have a higher ejection for unsporting behavior. This counts accross sports and three in a year accross all sports draws you an one year suspension from date of third ejection. You could get your third in baseball and you miss football or any other sport you play in fall and winter.

quote:

No. What I am speaking to is my absolute amazement and doubt that any statewide organization affiliated with NFHS would invite the liability that would accompany forcing an underage youth to leave the supervision provided by the school at an interscholastic activity. Effin' incredible, completely irresponsible, and contrary to FED policy.

Kid gets hit by a car on his way home when he could have still been with his coach. Your state really wants to open itself up to that?

I've sent an email to the Justin Harrison of the Florida group to confirm that they are really that stupid. I'll post what he replies.

As for ejecting fans, no rules code of which I'm familiar, Bob Davidson not withstanding, gives that authority to umpires. Rather they specfically do not extend that authority to umpires.

Jimmy,

I was not referring to school sponsored baseball (only HS in Orlando-no middle school teams), ejecting HS players, as obviously they would be required to be supervised in the dugout and ride bus if applicable. I was speaking more of youth league/travel ball players ejected who would leave the park with their parents....no parent present then they stay in dugout.(rare since a parent(s) are generally at games).

As for abusive fans, umpires absolutely can have them removed from the field area.....generally I will go to the coach first since they are responsible for their fan's coduct and see if they can get them away from the stands/backstop area after warning, however if it persists the fan will go, believe me!

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
As for abusive fans, umpires absolutely can have them removed from the field area.....generally I will go to the coach first since they are responsible for their fan's coduct and see if they can get them away from the stands/backstop area after warning, however if it persists the fan will go, believe me!

Got a local rule for that? Otherwise, you're MSU.

Being he is from Florida he may be working Dixie. They do make the manager responsible for his fans and do allow the umpire to take care of it.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:

quote:

No. What I am speaking to is my absolute amazement and doubt that any statewide organization affiliated with NFHS would invite the liability that would accompany forcing an underage youth to leave the supervision provided by the school at an interscholastic activity. Effin' incredible, completely irresponsible, and contrary to FED policy.

Kid gets hit by a car on his way home when he could have still been with his coach. Your state really wants to open itself up to that?

I've sent an email to the Justin Harrison of the Florida group to confirm that they are really that stupid. I'll post what he replies.

As for ejecting fans, no rules code of which I'm familiar, Bob Davidson not withstanding, gives that authority to umpires. Rather they specfically do not extend that authority to umpires.

Jimmy,

I was not referring to school sponsored baseball (only HS in Orlando-no middle school teams), ejecting HS players, as obviously they would be required to be supervised in the dugout and ride bus if applicable. I was speaking more of youth league/travel ball players ejected who would leave the park with their parents....no parent present then they stay in dugout.(rare since a parent(s) are generally at games).

As for abusive fans, umpires absolutely can have them removed from the field area.....generally I will go to the coach first since they are responsible for their fan's coduct and see if they can get them away from the stands/backstop area after warning, however if it persists the fan will go, believe me!

Under OBR the umpire has no such authority. Under FED the umpire has no such authority. Under NCAA the umpire has no such authority. As an umpire, I am obligated to follow the rules. I don't make sh!t up.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
Jimmy,

I was not referring to school sponsored baseball (only HS in Orlando-no middle school teams), ejecting HS players,

You must forgive me for any misunderstanding since you listed as your authority the FHSSA, the Florida State HIGH SCHOOL governing body.