Interference (attempting to avoid contact)

I dunno, dad. You may have forfeited your rights here by your act of disloyality in going to another site.

Contact in and of itself is not necessarily interference and there is a difference bewtee interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball and a fielder receiving a thrown ball.

What was the situation? Force play at second? B/R and fielder at first? Was fielder otherwise stationary and the runner could see the play develop? Did fielder come into the basepath at the last second? Tell me more.

As far as the argument you're getting at that othersite, I can agree, along wth other factors, that there is a difference between a defensive posture of the hands/arms and an offensive posture of the hands/arms.

Hands and arms initially extended and then collapsing back to the runner's chest, cushioning the contact is defensive. Hands and arms initially at the runner's chest and then extending outward into the fielder's chest is an offensive move.

But the posturing is just a piece of the situation. I'd need to know more about the detais of your incident to form an opinon.

In general terms the person I'm debating with says in his judgment, if you have time to lift your arms, you have time to avoid or make an attempt avoid a collision.

That's the sticking point we have. I say, to make a blanket statement like that is wrong. He claims, although he has nothing to base it on, if a player raises hid arms before the collisions that indicates he knew the collision was eminent and could have made an effort to avoid it. He said regardless of what he does with his arm, since he had time to raise them he had time to avoid or attempt to avoid contact.

I maintain in some cases the raising of the arms may very well be the reaction he's made to avoid contact. Here is the video I provided him, the umpire calls the runner out on the tag, not because he didn't try to avoid contact.

He says in his judgment the runner could have attempted to avoid contact and he would have called him out regardless. I disagree in two areas, 1) it could be argued the throw took the fielder into the runner’s path and 2) the runner did not have time to avoid contact and was raising his arms in a defensive gesture. What say you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAc4CbPTnkk

Obstruction.


But to your "sticking point"...hogwash. I'm not an expert on anatomy or physiology and I don't have a study on the timing of twitch muscles and the like, but I think any delcaration by an umpire that one group of muscles is an indicator of an another is ridiculous.

I have an out. F3 had the ball and tagged him.

But, no, the arms are not a blanket indication but can help in determining the intent of the runner. But, to say he had time in the video since he has no idea where F3 is going (I am just using the video since it was presented as an example) is wrong.

If the ball went to the fence in this case, I would have OBS or a train wreck. So, the blanket statement does not hold true for this video so he is wrong already.

This is directly from the 2011 NHFS Rulebook; I see this question repeatedly asked on the site and the reality is while there is not a "must slide" rule sliding takes out most of the question/judgement regarding "malicious." Sure there can be malicious sliding tactics as well but to be safe on collision plays at home it is best for the runner to slide or give themselves up. After that is is absolutely the umpire's judgement call.

MALICIOUS CONTACT
• Half of baseball ejections deal with malicious contact by the offense or defense (ball becomes dead).
• Over half of our baseball ejections every year pertain to malicious contact. Coaches need to visit with their players and inform them
what malicious contact is and regardless what they see on TV it is not permitted at the high school level. The majority of the time, malicious contact occurs between third base and home plate, but could occur and be enforced at other bases. The runner who creates malicious contact is ruled out and ejected.

• Keys to malicious contact & player ejection
• Player leads with forearm or lowered shoulder in attempt to take out the catcher

• Runners choices (when catcher has the ball)
o Legal Slide
o Stop and return to previous base (get in rundown)
o Let the fielder tag him

• What your runner should do if a fielder is in the baseline without the ball
o Go around the fielder - umpire should call out obstruction and throw out left arm, just like any other obstruction situation
o Coaches, teach your players not to block any baseline without the ball or they are subject to being called for obstruction
o If the ball arrives just prior to the contact and runner is tagged and there is a collision you have an out, but the player is not ejected unless he leads with the forearm or shoulder

Rule 3-3-1n: A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not: initiate malicious contact.
Rule 8-3-2: Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.

INCIDENTAL CONTACT vs MALICIOUS CONTACT
A) Not all collisions are malicious
B) A violent collision is not automatically considered malicious
C) Umpires shall rule on player’s intent:
1. Contact is result of intentional excessive force, or,
2. Contact is a result of intent to injure
D) Runners should be instructed to help eliminate the question of malicious or incidental contact by:
1. Sliding legally, and
2. Attempting to avoid making contact with defensive player

so what's your call here Mike, do you call the runner out because of the contact?

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
This is directly from the 2011 NHFS Rulebook;...

All of this? You must get a different FED rule book than I get.

I found this highlighted in the Iowa's High School Assoc as a highlighted rule for 2011, but in FL we call it the same way. I guess I am more amazed that there are so many posts where there is a collision at the plate.

NCAA, HS, League ball is all the same. As a runner why put yourself in position to be called out, possibly ejected, and have to miss another game because you deceided not to slide, or make it obvious to PU you were trying to avoid the contact/collision?

www.iahsaa.org/baseball/2011%2...all%20Highlights%20+ %20Pitch%20Lim%20+%20Sus%20Game.pdf

Agree, if you have time to try to avoid, sometimes, you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
I found this highlighted in the Iowa's High School Assoc as a highlighted rule for 2011, but in FL we call it the same way. I guess I am more amazed that there are so many posts where there is a collision at the plate.

I knew it had to be an add-on by someone. FED, outside of an ancient article in Referee Magazine, has never defined Malicious Contact, and that article defined it only as contact with "the intent to injure or cause harm."

NCAA contact rules are far superior as regards provding guidance for enforcement.

I hear you Jimmy and I really do not know much about NCAA and how they call the collision rule in college even though I watch many UCF and UF games on TV here. In high school here they call it pretty tough regarding collisions and whether or not by judgement it could have been avoided.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Obstruction.


But to your "sticking point"...hogwash. I'm not an expert on anatomy or physiology and I don't have a study on the timing of twitch muscles and the like, but I think any delcaration by an umpire that one group of muscles is an indicator of an another is ridiculous.

this is the salient point......and I like the term....HOGWASH....

There is contact in baseball.....there are times when players are going to need to occupy the same space and contact may occur....its up to the umpire to decide if that contact is malicious or just incidental...

The clip you showed was not MC by the runner. It was poor play by the F3 and a bad throw by F5/F6 drawing the F3 up the line. The F3 set up on top of the bag and a little toward the baseline, then throw drew him up the line.