What is the call on this one?

Derpends on whether or not the ump saw the foreatm shiver

BUT

The basepath belongs to the runner---the ump probably called the runner out and I too would have been tossed

The umpire did see it! And it could have been described as a forearm shiver, probably more to the upper chest rather than actually the neck which I mentioned earlier.

Probably an out and an ejection of the runner. MC supercedes obstruction.

Michael,

That is exactly how it was called. I thought our runner should have been awarded home plate and been ejected. Though the forearm was used (in mt mind) more as a natural contact and self protection thing. After all if contact is inevitable does anyone lead with their nose?

The split second that contact was made he should have been awarded home plate. Then the type of contact could have warrented an ejection.

Hypothetical case... Same exact play! "normal contact" is made ... The runner then takes a punch at the catcher. What is the call?

Anyway, I'm sure you're probably correct... I wish that umpire would have used your explanation "MC supercedes obstruction" I might have just shut up! But I doubt it!

Thanks

quote:

Hypothetical case... Same exact play! "normal contact" is made ... The runner then takes a punch at the catcher. What is the call?

Same call as before. The fact that the punch occurred after the "normal" contact doesn't change anything. As MST wrote, malicious contact supercedes the obstruction. It's not a matter of enforcing both penalties. Only the malicious contact penalty is enforced in the case described.

Now, to take it a step farther:
Runner is obstructed and is awarded home. Runner advances to plate and touches. Runner then goes to catcher and throws a punch.
In this case the run scores and the runner is ejected because the run scored before the malicious contact occurred. Strange, eh?

Thanks guys, I appreciate the expertise. That umpire could have easily avoided, or at least changed, my argument.

If you came out to defend your player using a forearm to knock a catcher flat on his a**, I seriously doubt you would have listened to anything the umpire had to say.

Who said I was "defending" anyone? I wanted the correct ruling. No problem with the ejection, but just how does a player make contact with a catcher he is about to collide with? Personally I thought it was a bit too aggressive, but not as dangerous as many collisions at the plate in professional baseball or take outs on DP plays. You sound strangely similiar to that umpire.

Why would you seriously doubt what someone might do in any situation? There really are people who are reasonable if treated with some respect. I've been around a lot of umpires who are very professional and respectful. I've been around some who are completely power hungry and need lots of attention.

Just curious... Which type are you, LonBlue?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Personally I thought it was a bit too aggressive, but not as dangerous as many collisions at the plate in professional baseball or take outs on DP plays. You sound strangely similiar to that umpire.

My, I seem to have struck a nerve with my innocent comment. Was this a NFHS-rules (FED) game? I'm thinking it was.


No, I wasn;t that umpire, but he sounds like someone I wouldn't mind calling with, if that's your angle. I am always professional and respectful to others as well, when they remember to be. I defend neither incompetent coaches nor incompetent umpires.

So basically this issue comes down to where the baserunner's arms were. He turned and had them up and contact was made to the chest area and it warrents an ejection. What if he turns and his arms are down (which I agree is not a natural move by anyone when they see resistence) but still runs into the catcher? Is that MC or interference?

It is a difficult situation to interpret because we didn't see it. Maybe the runner turned and wanted to hit the catcher or maybe he turned and the catcher saw he was in the way and started backpedaling and when contact was made he fell from being off balance. I can see PGStaff's point of view but then again if I was the ump and I saw arms up I would probably ruled MC. Hard to make a decision on this without seeing it firsthand.

Also, all good coaches defend their players. If you want them to respect and play for you you got to show you have their back. If they actually did do something wrong then you take care of it after the game or the next practice.

It was an NCAA game.

The one thing I failed to mention was the umpire in question was a young guy who enjoyed "power"!. He became well known in a hurry and that was his last year of working that conference. So I doubt he is someone anyone would want as a partner.

Umpires are just like players and coaches... Some are much better than others.

My original post was about a specific play. I got tossed for asking for an explanation. Guess you had to be there to see both the play and the ejections.

Anyway, Got the reply I was looking for, in a professional manner, earlier in the thread.

My first thought was 100 percent with MST......an out and an ejection for MC....When it comes to MC I treat it just like the supreme court justice said about obscenity...."I know it when I see it" and I'm not afraid to call it.... then again I do not assume that just because the arms are up that the contact is always MC.....its kind of natural to put up your arms to ward off any contact....I do look for intent to injure..absent that I have got nothing....

However this is a clear HTBT...hard to second guess anothers judgment....