Interesting call here.
Your thoughts? If you can find other angles, please post them.
Malicious contact or Obstruction?
Your thoughts? If you can find other angles, please post them.
Malicious contact or Obstruction?
You make the call!
- Thread starter UberCougars
- Start date
Former multi year Columbia Basin Umpires Association Umpire under Head Umpire, Assigning Secretary Umpire Gary Lawson, that Umpired High School Varsity Playoff games in Seattle, Spokane, Moses Lake, etc, HERE, SPEAKING.
Umpires CLEARLY ABSOLUTELY BLEW CALL. Here Why:
Under the the Malicious Contact, interference, Obstruction Rules as per the National Federation Baseball, and Umpires rulebook sections(Sorry can cite it any more specific):
BOTH Fielders, and Runners are ENTITLED to either Make a play on the ball, if they are a fielder, and run to base if they are a baserunner, and if they either stay on baserunning line, an or do not run more then about 2 feet outside baserunning line in a slight curve.
If a fielder is not making a play on the ball, and is in the way of the runner, or tries to block runner, or interfere with runner trying to run within baserunning lines, and purposeful non accidental contact happens. The Umpire shall stop play, call dead ball, call interference, obstruction on fielder, and award any, all runners a extra base in addition to the base they are, were running to.
If a runner is running outside baseline, and makes clear intentional, purposeful contact that clearly interferes, prevents the fielder from making a play on the ball, then the Umpire shall stop play, call dead ball, and calk interference on baserunning, and shall call the baserunner out.
If the base runner makes malicious contact with the Fielder, then the runner is declared out, even if runner stayed within running lane, and was initially called safe.
Ok now that the rules have been cited:
The Runner was running IN HIS LANE.
If the runner made big time malicious contact with fielder(Catcher), clearly after, or LONG AFTER either catcher missed ball, or catcher standing on, in front of home plate, with the baseball, then the runner is guilty of Malicious Contact.
The runner was running at breakneck speed toward home plate, and runner, and catcher, ball ALL ALMOST GOT THERE ALL AT SAME TIME.
The reason why that's important, is that because of that, there was no way the runner could avoid running into the catcher.
One could theoretically argue that he is supposed to slide, and that by not sliding, that's why the big time contact happened.
But the runner did try to slow down unsuccessfully, and did try to start his, a dive, in order to do a diving slide. This is evidenced by the runner starting to lean just barely slightly forward.
Also the runner also was trying to slightly twist his body in order to try to either avoid contact, or lessen the impact of contact.
Also the runner put his hands up in order to lessen the effect of contact, and put his hands on chest of catcher to try to lessen the impact of contact.
If the runner had been being malicious, he would not tried to lean, dive forward into maybe starting a slide, and would not have tried to slow down, albeit unsuccessfully, and would not have tried to twist body to avoid contact, and would not have put hands up on catchers chest to lessen contact. If Runner was Malicious he would have clearly torpedoed, bullrushed, tried to hit the catcher as hard, and as Maliciously as possible. And since Runner did not do that, then there was no Malicious contact.
And there wasn't interference, obstruction because it was accidental contact that happened, and both catcher, runner both, were both trying to run, make a play, do that which both were entitled to do.
So because of all that, proper call was no malicious contact, ACCIDENTAL contact, in each doing what each was entitled to do, and runner safe because catcher did not catch ball and did not tag out the runner.
As a example of this kind of thing where I was a new Umpire at the time, umpiring a junior high girls softball game for the first time.
The shortstop tried to make a play on a routine grounder in the running lane that the Shortstop was entitled to try to make. And the runner was running between 2nd and 3rd base within the running lane, something that the runner was also entitled to do. A accidental collision, contact happened between the runner and shortstop.
I made the error, mistake of calling either interference, or obstruction on either of either the fielder or runner.
Both coaches were unhappy with me, no matter which way I would have called it.
Gary Lawson the Head Umpire in charge had been watching to see how I would do. He later told me that it was accidental contact, and that the proper call was to call dead ball, and allow runner to goto 3rd base, and not further penalize, and not award extra bases, etc.
That lesson learnt also applies to the malicious contact call.
So the correct ruling would have been to call dead ball, and call the runner safe.
Like I said the Umpires totally blew that call, and totally got that call wrong.
THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS CONTACT PERIOD.
Not only Umpires blew the call, but the NCAA also blew the call.
The NCAA issued a statement.
The NCAA said that it was Malicious Contact because the runner did not slide, and that if not for the malicious contact, that obstruction should be called on the catcher.
They are theoretically, technically right that a slide did not happen.
But as I said above the runner tried to, start to lean forward to do a head first dive slide, but there was not enough time to either slow down do that slide because catcher was trying to CATCH the ball, something that he was ENTITLED to do. And runner after he ran into catcher SLID OVER THE TOP OF CATCHER IN SLIDE LIKE FASHION after runner ran into catcher. That is evidence that the runner was tried to slide, but failed, could not slide.
That means the NCAA is WRONG and that there was NO MALICIOUS CONTACT.
And the NCAA was WRONG in saying that if the SUPPOSED MALICIOUS CONTACT hadn't happened that obstruction should, would have been called on the catcher.
Even the aanouncer in the video clip knows the rule and said that the catcher was just trying to catch the ball.
The catcher was just trying to catch the ball and the ball just barely either missed the catchers glove, or slightly glanced off of the catchers glove a second just before the runner ran into catcher.
That's NOT OBSTRUCTION.
Now IF IF the catcher were blocking the plate and either 1. The ball gets there late after the runner runs into catcher. 2. The ball gets there on time but is way behind catcher. 3. The ball gets there on time but is way over the head of the catcher. ETC, those type of things, then that would be OBSTRUCTION on the catcher.
But since the ball was either on target, or just barely by skin of teeth off target, and since catcher ALMOST caught the ball, and was just trying to catch the ball, like he was ENTITLED to do by the rules, then IT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION ON THE CATCHER PERIOD.
THE NCAA IS WRONG PERIOD.
The NCAA either just rubber stamped, listened to whatever the errant Umpires that made the call said, or the NCAA and its national supervisor head Umpire, secretary, leadership, etc, does not know the rules or does not know how to apply and interpret the rules correctly.
Even the announcers know the rules and how to apply, interpret the rules correctly, as the announcer said that the catcher was trying to catch the ball.
That's BAD when the NCAA and its leaders don't know how to apply and interpret the rules, and either can't see the obvious runner trying to slide, trying to slow down, trying to lessen the impact of running into catcher, and cant see that there was no malicious contact, cant see that the catcher was just trying to catch the ball and that there was no obstruction, or DIDNT BOTHER TO WATCH, REVIEW, AND JUST RUBBER STAMPED THE GAME UMPIRES.
That's just EMBARRASSING for the NCAA, OR AT LEAST SHOULD BE.
THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS CONTACT AND THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE CATCHER WAS JUST TRYING TO CATCH THE BALL, ALMOST CAUGHT THE BALL, SOMETHING THE CATCHER IS ENTITLED TO TRY TO DO PERIOD.
THE NCAA AND UMPIRES ARE WRONG PERIOD.
Gary Lawson the Head Umpire in Chief of the Columbia Basin Umpires would either be facepalming at the Umpires, NCAA ruling, or if he is dead, would be rolling in his grave over the blown call, and the NCAA ruling.
The Ducks lost both of their games in the Eugene Regional, so the Ducks have been eliminated from the playoffs.
Life is good. There is justice in this world. All is as it should be. We can all celebrate now.
I was going to post this yesterday, but I didn't want to risk jinxing the Beavers in their Corvallis Regional game this afternoon.
Life is good. There is justice in this world. All is as it should be. We can all celebrate now.
I was going to post this yesterday, but I didn't want to risk jinxing the Beavers in their Corvallis Regional game this afternoon.
After reading NCAA rule 2-55 (obstruction) and 8-7 (collision rule), it appears to me that these rules are so intertwined and so impossibly convoluted that either call would be correct.
The catcher is allowed to block the path if he has the ball, or if he is attempting to field the ball in flight and doing so requires that he is in the path. If the runner is “attempting to score” (meaning that the runner is within the dirt circle), the catcher must either have the ball or be making a legitimate attempt to field it. (Link)
In this case, the catcher mishandled the throw just before the baserunner entered the dirt circle. Therefore, he was not in possession of the ball, nor attempting to field it, and he did impede the runner’s progress, so this is obstruction.
But….then there’s 8-7.b, where by rule the runner is called out if he deviates from his path to initiate contact. And also by rule, “runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact.” The exception to this is if the runner slides, where - by rule - his buttocks and legs must hit the ground before contact with the catcher.
My read is that the malicious contact portion of the rule requires that the fielder have possession of the ball, and the runner attempts to dislodge it. Since the ball was misplayed, I don’t think that applies.
So, in my opinion - it would have been defensible to call obstruction, but this play qualifies by the slimmest of margins.
I don’t like this call, because I’m of the era where a catcher in the basepath was part of the field, but by current rules it would also be defensible to call the runner out for initiating contact. The way he raised his arms and did not slide properly is, by rule, initiating contact. I do not think the ejection was supported by the rule.
The catcher is allowed to block the path if he has the ball, or if he is attempting to field the ball in flight and doing so requires that he is in the path. If the runner is “attempting to score” (meaning that the runner is within the dirt circle), the catcher must either have the ball or be making a legitimate attempt to field it. (Link)
In this case, the catcher mishandled the throw just before the baserunner entered the dirt circle. Therefore, he was not in possession of the ball, nor attempting to field it, and he did impede the runner’s progress, so this is obstruction.
But….then there’s 8-7.b, where by rule the runner is called out if he deviates from his path to initiate contact. And also by rule, “runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact.” The exception to this is if the runner slides, where - by rule - his buttocks and legs must hit the ground before contact with the catcher.
My read is that the malicious contact portion of the rule requires that the fielder have possession of the ball, and the runner attempts to dislodge it. Since the ball was misplayed, I don’t think that applies.
So, in my opinion - it would have been defensible to call obstruction, but this play qualifies by the slimmest of margins.
I don’t like this call, because I’m of the era where a catcher in the basepath was part of the field, but by current rules it would also be defensible to call the runner out for initiating contact. The way he raised his arms and did not slide properly is, by rule, initiating contact. I do not think the ejection was supported by the rule.
I watched it once and if I had not already known what the call was I would have said "what a cool, hardnosed baseball play". Safe at home. Refs should not have even reviewed the call - there was no call. Catcher missed it and he was safe. Period.
It brought back a couple of flashbacks, including one when I was either 9 (minors) or 10 (majors). I grounded to the SS, and they had me beat by a half-step so I swerved out of the baseline into the outreaching first baseman and knocked him down. He held on, so I was out either way. Bad news, his Dad was their coach and he got a little upset with me. But no ejection.
It brought back a couple of flashbacks, including one when I was either 9 (minors) or 10 (majors). I grounded to the SS, and they had me beat by a half-step so I swerved out of the baseline into the outreaching first baseman and knocked him down. He held on, so I was out either way. Bad news, his Dad was their coach and he got a little upset with me. But no ejection.
Your theoretically technically right about what you, the rule said about that the catcher missed catching the ball a split half second before, while the runner was outside the dirt circle, and that because of that it was theoretically technically Obstruction.
But here is why that does not apply.
The catcher is entitled to try to catch the ball. By the laws of physics it is impossible for a catcher to try to catch the ball, then fail to catch the ball then GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE RUNNER WHEN IF THE RUNNER IS A SPLIT HALF SECOND AWAY.
In other words you have a catch 22, conflict between the right of the fielder to try to catch the ball, and the rest of the obstruction rule as written because of the inability of the catcher to get out of the way in time.
When a rule is poorly written, and there are contradictions, conflicts, catch 22's within the rules, then you have to go by both the spirit and the wording of the rule.
The spirit, purpose of the rule is to deter Fielders from obstructing, impeding the baserunner, and to only allow the fielder to do that if the fielder is clearly trying to field the ball, and if does not catch the ball, cant get out of the way in time, etc.
Because of all that, the obstruction rule does not apply in that situation. If it did apply in that situation then millions of catchers would be called for obstruction all the time in similar plays, situations, because they tried to catch the ball, and couldnt get out of the way of the baserunner in time, etc. But those millions of catchers are not called for obstruction.
For the rule to be applied correctly, the catcher must CLEARLY be in the basepath, way, and CLEARLY be without the ball, and CLEARLY have enough time to get out of the way.
If catcher fails to catch ball and does not have the ball, and has enough time to get out of way and doesnt and CLEARLY either PUREPOSELY or accidentally be blocking, impeding the baserunner, THEN its obstruction.
Trust me as a former Umpire, obstruction is NOT a call that any level, highschool, college, pro, etc, EXPERIENCED Umpire, and thats millions of umpires, would make on that catcher, and that the Umpires in Chief of the Columbia Basin, Spokane Area, Seattle area would DISAPPROVE because they have disapproved of NEW BEGINNING, FIRST TIME UMPIRES MISTAKENLY MAKING SIMILAR ERRANT CALLS, RULINGS.
As to what you said about Malicous Contact, yes the Baserunner didnt slide.
That was because:
1. He was running at breakneck speed, and its extremely hard but still technically doable(for those players who know how, able to), to slide at breakneck speed.
2. If the catcher hadn't been in the way so close to the runner, the runner did try to start a head first diving slide, but there was not enough room, and not enough time, and after the runner ran into the catcher, the runner SLIDED over the catcher, which showed that the runner did try to slide.
3. Even tho the rule only talks about a butt slide, if a player does a head first diving stomach, chest on ground slide, that is acceptable, and is not called by the Umpires, as millions of college players make this kind of slide, and then accidentally run into catcher, and dont get called for it by the Umpires.
4. The runner was trying, but failing to slow down in order to lessen the impact.
5. The runner started to just barely slightly twist to try to lessen impact of running into catcher.
6. The runner put his hands up to lessen the impact of running into catcher. Now I understand that according to your quoting of the rule that the rule says that putting up the hands is normally malicious contact, but part of the enforcement of the malicious contact is too judge whether its malicious contact or not, whether the runner was trying to be malicious, whether the runner was malicious, and the runner's INTENT, PURPOSE, etc.
Did the runner try to avoid the catcher? Did the runner have enough time to do so? Did the runner have the ability by the laws of physics to avoid the catcher, or was the runner going so fast, and not enough time, etc, sort of like when a DL can't avoid hitting QB without the ball because at the last split half second QB throws it? Did the runner try to lessen impact by doing things such as putting hands up?
If the runner is trying to make malicious contact the runner would not try to slow down and would speed up, if possible, and the runner would not try to avoid catcher, and the runner would not put up hands to lessen impact, and the runner would torpedoe, spear, hit the catcher as hard, brutally as possible like a linebacker trying to crush a WR, in a malicious way. That's malicious contact.
There was NOTHING MALICIOUS in what the runner did to the catcher. Again you have to go by the intent, purpose, spirit, etc, of the rules. The rule is designed to prevent a runner from MALICIOUSLY contacting the catcher.
Was the runner MALICIOUS? NO
Did the runner try to slow down? YES.
Did the runner try to twist to avoid the runner? YES
Did the runner try to LESSEN THE IMPACT by putting up his hands, in a NON malicious way? YES
Did the runner try to start to do a diving head first stomach, chest slide? Yes
Was there enough time, space room to do such a slide? NO
Going by all of that its quite obvious that the runner was NOT malicious. So the runner was not guilty of Malicious Contact.
Again Trust me no experienced normal umpire would call that Malicious Contact and rule it Malicious Contact.
If they did, then millions of runners in similar situation would be guilty of Malicious Contact, and are NOT called, ruled out, not called, ruled guilty of Malicious Contact by the umpires, and would be called guilty of Malicious Contact by umpires IF all umpires would rule that the runner was guilty of malicious contact, etc.
Almost all umpires will, would rule it as NOT malicious contact, not obstruction, and would rule, call the runner safe at home because the catcher did not catch the ball, did not tag out runner, and runner touched the plate, and catcher was trying to catch ball so therefore no obstruction, and the runner was not malicious, so not malicious contact.
THAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT RULING AND THE RULING THAT ALMOST ALL UMPIRES WOULD MAKE.
Last edited:
