Malicious Contact?

Posted by otownmike

quote:

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.

I gotta disagree with this thinking. A runner has a right to attempt to reach home plate, or any base for that matter. A legal hard slide, even if he contacts the fielder should not be deemed malicious contact. It's baseball and I hate the idea that if there is contact, someone needs to be ejected.

quote:

Originally posted by mrumpiresir:
Posted by otownmike

quote:

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.

I gotta disagree with this thinking. A runner has a right to attempt to reach home plate, or any base for that matter. A legal hard slide, even if he contacts the fielder should not be deemed malicious contact. It's baseball and I hate the idea that if there is contact, someone needs to be ejected.

I believe the interp presented here is in error. I've been assured by a spokeman from FHSSA that they follow FED rules and interpretations. The interp presented here conflicts with FED rulings.

A legal slide that involves contact is still a legal slide.

I really have to make this my last point on this dead horse.

I have no idea why "hard slide" (which is a legal slide whether head-first/feet-first) is being confused with "intentinal/malicous contact" (an ejectable offense and usually carries additional suspension) no matter what base but especially at home plate as high schools moved many years ago to eliminate collissions at the plate.

The interp presented here is not in error Jimmy if you understand the point I am making is about intentional/malicious contact which is going to be the umpires judgement.

Signing off on this topic since reading is elementary!

If the catcher is three feet up the third base line and in the basepath without the ball that is OBSTRUCTION/INTERFERENCE, whichever term you choose to use, on the part of the catcher

In the old days before our country got so soft the catcher would be obliterated by the runner attempting to score

TR:
It is somewhat semantics but the catcher is in a position to commit obstruction. The runner has the option to go around him to make the plate. Now if slowing down or going around F2 causes the runner to be out then he has been obstructed and home is awarded. Now in true OBR, the F2 can go up the line to field the ball. In other codes this may not be true.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If the catcher is three feet up the third base line and in the basepath without the ball that is OBSTRUCTION/INTERFERENCE, whichever term you choose to use, on the part of the catcher

In the old days before our country got so soft the catcher would be obliterated by the runner attempting to score

Don't know how far back you go, but that hasn't been allowed in HS ball for at least the past 30 year. In pros...heck yes.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:

The interp presented here is not in error Jimmy if you understand the point I am making is about intentional/malicious contact which is going to be the umpires judgement.

Signing off on this topic since reading is elementary!

The proper saying is "reading is fundamental."

But my reading is not the problem. You keep posting, in very clear language, incorrect statements, such as: "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."

Again, you site the FHSSA as the authority for an incorrect interpreation. In fact, a runner may collide with the catcher if it is the result of a legal slide. There is no "No collision rule" in FED.

If this is not what you meant, then remember, words have meaning; using the correct ones would help.

JIMMY

THE KIDS TODAY DO NOT SWING ENOUGH!

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If the catcher is three feet up the third base line and in the basepath without the ball that is OBSTRUCTION/INTERFERENCE, whichever term you choose to use, on the part of the catcher

Only coaches call this interference.

quote:

Again, you site the FHSSA as the authority for an incorrect interpreation. In fact, a runner may collide with the catcher if it is the result of a legal slide. There is no "No collision rule" in FED.

Jimmy using your interpretation as slding into the catcher constituing a collision then ok you are correct...of course this is not what the topic was...."malicious/intentional".....it is not an incorrect statement when the collision is running into/over the catcher while while not attempting to slide or avoid running into the catcher....even if it mean surrendering to avoid the collision....what umpire would use the judgement that sliding constitues running over the catcher? (maybe spikes up is all I could think....again not what the discussion was about)

Fundamental & elementary!!

I think Jimmy was referring to this part of your post:

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:
Running over the catcher whether it is a hard slide or standing up if deemed intentional by the umpire results in an ejection.

A legal hard slide (i.e., on the ground, before the base, spikes below the fielder's knee and no intent to injure) is legal no matter what happens to the catcher.

quote:

A legal hard slide (i.e., on the ground, before the base, spikes below the fielder's knee and no intent to injure) is legal no matter what happens to the catcher.

I understand legal hard slide "no intent to injure" and that was not in question. My statement refers to intentionally taking out the catcher with malicous/intent whether sliding or standing can result in ejection.

I probably shouldn't post this because it's going to cause a s**t storm but here goes.

Now you umps know why some umpires drive coaches nuts in the actual game.

I totally respect the umps on here because they have helped me learn the game better. I totally respect umps in general because without them we don't have the game but there are times when they drive us nuts. This seems to be a pretty simple situation - did the runner take out the catcher or not - and you guys can't come to a consensus as to what it is. So in the real world we get one guy who sees something as one way and then two weeks later we get another guy who sees it another way. That's what drives us nuts.

Yes we got idiot coaches out there who are just as frustrating to you as some of your guys are to us. But maybe now you can see why some of us get on here and complain a little. I would pay double to have you guys ump my games but the reality of the situation is that you guys are the exception to a regular ump. Good or bad it is what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
I probably shouldn't post this because it's going to cause a s**t storm but here goes.

Now you umps know why some umpires drive coaches nuts in the actual game.

I totally respect the umps on here because they have helped me learn the game better. I totally respect umps in general because without them we don't have the game but there are times when they drive us nuts. This seems to be a pretty simple situation - did the runner take out the catcher or not - and you guys can't come to a consensus as to what it is. So in the real world we get one guy who sees something as one way and then two weeks later we get another guy who sees it another way. That's what drives us nuts.

Yes we got idiot coaches out there who are just as frustrating to you as some of your guys are to us. But maybe now you can see why some of us get on here and complain a little. I would pay double to have you guys ump my games but the reality of the situation is that you guys are the exception to a regular ump. Good or bad it is what it is.

Understand completely. The issue here, apparently, is that we have a poster thinking one thing and writing another.

To your point of getting different rule interpretations from different umpires:

1. FED, unlike NCAA does not hold clinics with uniform standards around the county. Add to that, several states leave associations to their own devices when it comes to training. This is not conducive to uniformity.

2. There is no excuse for an umpire to be current on interpretations, however. They are provided on line and state organization will answer emailed questions. Any umpire ignorant of the rules, in my opinion, chooses to be so and has no business on the field.

3. All the more incentive for coaches to open a rule book, invest in case books and learn which interp is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
3. All the more incentive for coaches to open a rule book, invest in case books and learn which interp is correct.

Ding ding ding! Let an umpire screw the pooch a few times in a year, and get reported to the state for all of them. I'll bet you won't see them next year.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
I probably shouldn't post this because it's going to cause a s**t storm but here goes.

Now you umps know why some umpires drive coaches nuts in the actual game.

I totally respect the umps on here because they have helped me learn the game better. I totally respect umps in general because without them we don't have the game but there are times when they drive us nuts. This seems to be a pretty simple situation - did the runner take out the catcher or not - and you guys can't come to a consensus as to what it is. So in the real world we get one guy who sees something as one way and then two weeks later we get another guy who sees it another way. That's what drives us nuts.

Yes we got idiot coaches out there who are just as frustrating to you as some of your guys are to us. But maybe now you can see why some of us get on here and complain a little. I would pay double to have you guys ump my games but the reality of the situation is that you guys are the exception to a regular ump. Good or bad it is what it is.

Your statement should not create a storm. You are absolutely correct unfortunately. Obstruction is a much misunderstood and worse, undercalled rule. It got to the point where Fed, NCAA and LL all changed their rules to make it tougher for guys to not call it. It has helped some but they didn't do a great job of writing the rule change.
Obstruction in Fed is considered unsporting and they want it to be a punitive call. As a result you always get at least one base.
In OBR you have two types, one punitive, one procedural. Type A is where you obstruct a player when a play is being made on the runner. This kills the ball immediately and the runner gets at least one base. Take the play at the plate, the catcher is in the line three feet up. This where the umpires have shot themselves in the foot. If the catcher has to move to that position to catch the ball then he is OK. If he goes there to make the throw come to him there and he obstructs the runner then that's type A and the runner gets the plate. What has happened over the years is umpires have hung their hat on the fact that F2 was fielding the ball in the line but not worried about why they were there.
I can't explain if it is because they don't understand the rule, don't want to make waves or just think it is OK.