Skip to main content

22 replies

Interference then Collision- Did they get it Right?

R RolliedoggMember
Runner on 1st. Batter hits the ball into the gap. High School game.Runner of 1st attempts to score from 1st on the hit. As the runner approaches home, the catcher is set-up about 3-4ft up the line towards third. The pitcher is in the area and actually starts inching is way into the basepath about 6ft up the line(2 or 3ft from the catcher). The runner and pitcher make contact, enough that the runner is slowed. In another step or two, the runner and catcher collide. Bang Bang play hard to tell if the catcher touches runner, but catcher holds onto the ball as both runner and catcher tumble to the ground. Defensive manager complains, umpires conference, offesnive manager complains. The final ruling was that run scores due to interference by the pitcher, no out recorded. Runner is ejected for not avoiding contact with catcher. Player must now also miss the next game due to ejection.

Once interference occurs is this a dead ball and would that cancel anything that happens afterwards that is part of the play. The intention of the runner was that he would have slid wide and reached for the plate with his hand. But once the pitcher interfered, he had no where else to go. Opinions??
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

piaa_umppiaa_ump5,000+ posts
from your description, it sounds as if the Umpires got this right....Only item is that this is obstruction and not interference.....(the offense interferes, the defense obstructs....)

Obstruction is not an immediate dead ball, its a delayed dead ball...so what happens afterwards is still in play.......also being obstructed does not eliminate the runners requirement to avoid malicous contact....

I dont buy the runners explanation that he had no choice....your post said he was slowed not forced off or into a crash course with the catcher...MC is a judgment call, and in PIAA an ejection for MC carries with it a one game suspension.....

It sounds like they got this right....which is good to hear since this is in my backyard.....
Last edited by piaa_ump
R RolliedoggMember
Interesting the umpire actually said it was an immediate dead ball. You mention that the runner is still obligated to avoid contact. But if the time between bumping into the pitcher and then colliding with catcher is only a step or two how is the runner expected to adjust his path. The runner is expecting to see a catcher and he can either step around or slide with a hand swipe of the base. With the pitcher obstructing, the runner is placed in a position of being in a place and time not of his making. Calling malicious contact and penalizing with missing the next game seems different than the case where a runner just decides to bowl over the catcher. Likewise, if the runner had not had to slow down, he might have arrived at the catcher before the ball.
N NavyUmp10+ posts
Rolliedog, you are either the coach or the parent but you need to UN-bias yourself from the situation. Bottom line is in High School under FED you MUST slide legally or ATTEMPT to avoid the fielder. A player must understand this rule is in affect even at the expense of scoring a run or being safe. In the OP the umpires ultimately rule the pitcher obstructed so regardless of what the runner did after that, whether the slide, missed the base was tagged out, whatever, he will be awarded home.

As an umpire you can tell when a player attempts to aviod. It might be at the very last moment and there still might be contact but you can tell. He could have started to pull up, something to show an attempt to avoid. More or less a HTBT but based on the post I am agreeing with the call
O otownmike100+ posts
quote:
also being obstructed does not eliminate the runners requirement to avoid malicous contact....

Stan....my question is was this malicious contact? I understand there is the rule whereby the runner is to avoid running over the catcher but I thought the call to eject the player was based on the umpires judgement over it being malicious verus a bang-bang play where the runner is trying to avoid contact but makes contact. There is not a must slide rule however that is generally a good idea to take the contact out of judhgement as being malicious

Additioanlly here we have pitcher obstruction and delayed play whereby in the umpire's judemnent the runner would have scored if not for the obstruction. Rule 7 would be the rule challenge and the run should have been scored.
R RolliedoggMember
I guess I am trying to learn the what constitutes MC. I came across this definition for when a runner will be out:
2. When a play is being made on a runner or batter-runner, he establishes his baseline as directly between his position and the base toward
which he is moving.
b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact

My interpretation of the play is that based upon the pitcher's obstruction just a step or two before the collision at home, the runner did not have time to react and certainly did not plan on MC. I could understand the illegal contact and recording the out. Based upon the rule above, I assume that all illegal contact is not MC. I know it gets to HTBT but the obstruction of the pitcher influenced the play's outcome. From what I am hearing, if MC is called then the run should not have counted (but it was). Seems like a stiff penalty for the offense when the pitcher's obstruction was the catalyst.
Last edited by Rolliedogg
M mrumpiresir10+ posts
I would like to see people get away from the idea that the runner must avoid contact. The rulebook says he must attempt to avoid contact. Not all contact requires the runner to be penalized.

I had a play last week where the runner and the ball arrived at the catcher simultaneously. The runner went low in an attempt to dive head first around the catcher to tag the plate. The catcher took the throw and there was a violent collision. The runner was attempting to avoid contact and reach the plate .. doing what he was supposed to do. Nothing malicious. The catcher held the ball and the runner was out. No one was hurt. It would be wrong to penalize the runner in this situation.
piaa_umppiaa_ump5,000+ posts
What I really like about this site is that it forces me into the rule book....I am going to have to review this with my study materials but the point that I'm figuring in now is that "Malicious Contact supercedes Obstruction"......

malicious contact is an immediate dead ball... stay tuned,......also if MST comes soon, I know he has this nailed, having a recent play happen .....
yawetagyawetag100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by NavyUmp:
In the OP the umpires ultimately rule the pitcher obstructed so regardless of what the runner did after that, whether the slide, missed the base was tagged out, whatever, he will be awarded home.


Yes, but if he then initiated malicious contact after the OBS, he's out and ejected -- without the run scoring.

Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
The pitcher committed the obstruction, while the runner was judged to have made malicious contact with the catcher.

There is considerable disagreement among knowledgeable umpires whether malicious contact supersedes a separate instance of obstruction.

I am myself in the camp that says that it does not, and that the run would score. But others whose opinion I respect would disagree.
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove
O otownmike100+ posts
Point taken Yaw but the question is not all collisions are malicious and a judgement for the PU. In the scenario posted it appeared to me as it was a bang-bang play due to obstruction and I question the ejection which then forces an out/ejection/suspension. I agree with Mr. Ump where the "runner must ATTEMPT to avoid collision/contact." If PU dtermines this was the case then no ejection should have occured and the runner should have been ruled safe based on obstruction.
piaa_umppiaa_ump5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by otownmike:
Point taken Yaw but the question is not all collisions are malicious and a judgement for the PU.


Mike,
In an interent setting it is impossible for us to overide the judgment of the umpire in the OP. he was there we are not, so debating if it was MC or not is useless....

That PU adjudged it as MC....if you and I were on the game, we may not have seen it that way....but in answering the OP, we have to assume it was MC....
M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by piaa_ump:
That PU adjudged it as MC....if you and I were on the game, we may not have seen it that way....but in answering the OP, we have to assume it was MC....


I don't think we can make that assumption. After all, the penalty was not consistent with MC. There are many possibilities, of which some are MC and a misapplied penalty, or a misinterpreted rule resulting in an improper ejection, or...
Michael S. TaylorMichael S. Taylor1,000+ posts
To start obstruction is a delayed dead ball. MC is an imediate dead ball. Not all contact is malicious.

The problem is twofold. Fed doesn't define MC and there are no caseplays to cover an obstruction by one player then a MC with another player.
This is an ultimate HTBT question. In my mind, once the pitcher stepped in the way the benefit of the doubt goes to the runner. As stated, contact, even violent contact, isn't necessarily MC. The NCAA definition says something along the lines of it must be intentional and be an attempt to injure. That is not a bad definition.
One thing that we could more info on is how severe was the contact with the pitcher. Did it put the runner out of control or change his direction. If the pitcher changed his direction or made him stumble then I can't see MC.
Most times there is MC the runner lowers his shoulder, raises his arms or swings an elbow. This isn't the only way but it is the most common methods.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
In the only, even semi-official, definition of MC that I've seen, FED sets the bar fairly high.

Brad Rumble, former FED rules interpreter in an article wrote that MC occurred when a player makes contact "with the intent to cause injury or harm."

There has not been, to my knowledge any other offering from FED specific to the meaning of MC since then.
H heyump7Member
This reply is the results of a conversation with Elliot Hopkins. The ruling is: Malicious contact supersedes obstruction even if several players are involved. Therefore the runner is out, no run is scored and in PA the runner is ejected and must sit out the next game. The run would have scored if the malicious contact had occurred after the runner had touched home plate. A similar case can be found in the HS case book 8-4-2 SITUATION S page 81
O otownmike100+ posts
quote:
In an interent setting it is impossible for us to overide the judgment of the umpire in the OP. he was there we are not, so debating if it was MC or not is useless....


Stan,

I see your point but my question is, in reading how Rollie wrote the scenario out my impression is that it was clearly obstruction and then PU/judgement. Interpreting how Rollie wrote the scenario, "after making contact with the pitcher the runner is slowed and in the next 2-3 steps collides the catcher on a bang-bang play."

Based on how this was presented it makes me question whether PU got it right. Malicious may have happened? Highly questionalble to me though in how this was presented.
Last edited by Michael S. Taylor
Michael S. TaylorMichael S. Taylor1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by heyump7:
This reply is the results of a conversation with Elliot Hopkins. The ruling is: Malicious contact supersedes obstruction even if several players are involved. Therefore the runner is out, no run is scored and in PA the runner is ejected and must sit out the next game. The run would have scored if the malicious contact had occurred after the runner had touched home plate. A similar case can be found in the HS case book 8-4-2 SITUATION S page 81


8-4-2 Situation S has nothing to do with the conversation.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×