Whats the rule?

[default]

i never said that just running into the fielder, my point was that malicious was more than what bretman described it as, I know that malicious is much more than just running the examples i gave of malicious were that the runner ran into or hit the fielder intentionally because they were in the baseline. ?If a runner knows the fielder is in the baseline and does not make an attempt to avoid contact and runs directly into her you can not tell that was not intentional.

Bret said you can only have an out whe when the fielder has the ball, and he also said the malicious can only happen if the runner does something to alter her path, that is the reason I used the case situation to show that is wrong. ?the case situation says you can have malicious contact if the defender doesnt have the ball and there can malicious contact if the runner is just running to the base and causes malicious contact, now my point was that it would have to be deemed malicious. this case situation shows that Bret was off the mark but I can not get you to see what you dont want to so i give up.

 

[default]

sbump, a batter-runner is looking at 2 things when running to first base, she is looking at the coach or she is looking at the bag. ?She is not looking at any of the fielders. ?When she rounds first, she then is focused first on 2nd base and then she might be trying to locate the ball. ?As she approaches 2nd base, she is now focused on the 3rd base coach. ?At no time does she have time to focus on whether a fielder has decided to pitch camp in the baseline. ?

It is the fielder's responsibility to stay out of the baseline unless she is making a play. ?If girls were taught this simple rule from the beginning, then we will not see the look of disbelief on the firstbasegirl's face after she gets bumped to the ground because she is standing on 1st base gawking at the hit in center field.

 

[default]

I think the word that was underlined was "Maliciously" not "intentionally".

 

[default]

 

[default]

According to the original post "she bumped into her and got knocked back a couple steps". The first baseman didn't fall or move from my understanding. I guess I don't see any malice there.

 

[default]

Bret said you can only have an out whe when the fielder has the ball, and he also said the malicious can only happen if the runner does something to alter her path, ?that is the reason I used the case situation to show that is wrong. ?the case situation says you can have malicious contact if the defender doesnt have the ball and there can malicious contact if the runner is just running to the base and causes malicious contact, now my point was that it would have to be deemed malicious. ?this case situation shows that Bret was off the mark but I can not get you to see what you dont want to so i give up.

I see that you edited your post within the last few minutes. When I first read your post you had attributed some quotes to me that I flat-out never made in this thread!

You have removed those erroneous quotes and I thank you for that.

Now, go back and re-read my post. What "Bret said" was in response to the first post in this thread that refered to a play in a recent tournament.

High school ball ended months ago and I'm not aware of any recent tournaments played using NFHS high school rules. My post you are quoting was not, and was never intended to be a commentary on HIGH SCHOOL/NFHS RULES.

In fact, the post you are quoting was there well BEFORE you made it clear that the rule you are using is the HIGH SCHOOL/NFHS RULE, so I could not have possibly known that was the rule you were applying.

(My post was made at noon yesterday. Your post citing an NFHS rule was made around 10:30 p.m. and was the first inkling that you were using high school rules).

As I have said here several times, the ASA rule and interpretation is quite a bit different than the high school/NFHS rule. The term "malicious contact" does not appear anywhere in the ASA rule book and the definition of interference is different than the NFHS rule.

Just because something is ruled one way under one rule set, you cannot always apply the same rule to a different rule set.

Maybe that is what caused our first misunderstanding...and things went downhill from there!

 

[default]

Bretman=1
sbump=0

Go Bretman!!

 

[default]

"Bretman" has the call.
I have seen it too many time that players stand in the way to slow down runners.
we have case book def.
"cshilt" gave us a good def.
and "avita" gave some good exp that fits the def. from cshilt.
I think bretman will make the right call. One I could live with.

You call one fielder on the block one time, thats maybe all thats needed in that game, coaches will take a hand slap, but eject a player, or/and them, that will get their attention.