Umpire HIT BY PITCH

[mcrowder]

Thank you, Rich.

We are not the game. We officiate the game. We should not, because of our egos, affect the outcome of the game. Ejecting a player because he can't catch is absolutely the worst thing I've ever heard on this board.

[gordon30307]

Never ejected a catcher because he sucked. Probably would never eject for this reason. Only had one occaision where I had to get rid of a catcher because he couldn't catch. As I recall I got hit by the pitch about 5 or 6 times in one inning. Now if you want to put up with this for a whole game that's your business. Problem is some coaches will put players in positions where they have no chance to succeed. I have no problem if they pitch or play short etc. However, when you put them behind the plate I become an unwilling part of the experiment. Now if you want to be part of this noble venture that's certainly your perogative. As for me I not getting paid enough to be a target.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Thank you, Rich.

We are not the game. We officiate the game. We should not, because of our egos, affect the outcome of the game. Ejecting a player because he can't catch is absolutely the worst thing I've ever heard on this board.

Some of you people must be really great umpires because you have very selective hearing/recall/perception.

Nobody said "we are the game." I said we a a necessary part of the game.

Nobody has said "eject because he CAN'T catch." The discussion on this thread, the half of it that actually has been germane, has been about catchers that CAN catch but are to lazy to make the effort to perform that catch.

Perhaps some of you need to go back and read the original post... rather than taking your own personal frustrations out on people you can't see... for a situation that isn't what we are discussing.

I would skip the selective, out of context clippings as you re-read.

Oh, and I am worthy to post to this board and very likely I am worthy enough to work baseball games with anyone that posts on this board at whatever level they work.

Telling people they need to get off the field or hang it up based upon this discussion is more than bold, and likely, just simply narrow-minded/puerile.

Maybe it's time for me to take a break before it really does get worse.

[Rich Ives]

The discussion on this thread, the half of it that actually has been germane, has been about catchers that CAN catch but are to lazy to make the effort to perform that catch.

That's a catcher that can't catch.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
This most recent time was a 17 year old kid that was just being lazy - too lazy to reach across his body and catch a very regular pitch. He was most likely upset about being required to play catcher - he wanted to pitch. This is the one that hit me in the unprotected area of that bone end sticking out from the side of my elbow.

As I said previously, it's usually poor positioning, poor mechanics, or poor equipment that leads to non-trivial injuries when working the plate. Based on your description above, it sounds like you're "exposing your wing" rather than keeping it tucked in, close to your body. Stick that wing out there when you take your stance and you'll take a shot on the elbow that will hurt like hell. Tuck that wing in close to your body and the worst you'll get is a glancing blow that hurts for, oh, about 3 seconds.

You're welcome.

[JJ]

I've never ejected a catcher for not catching the ball. I've been lucky in that I've never had a battery mad enough at me to "let one go". I've been hit when a catcher has been crossed up, but not enough to get excited about - usually before I could say anything the catcher was already on his way to the mound. I have told catchers to "Catch the ball" on a pitch they should have gloved, but they're already hearing the same thing from their coach - and maybe their pitcher who thinks he just got a strike taken away by his own teammate. I've heard stories for years about umpires dumping catchers because they (the umpires) get hit. I've always figured if this guy is their Number One catcher, I SURE don't want to dump him and risk Number Two.

[jumpmaster]

I never said eject. My comments were "Coach, get me another catcher." I don't care if this kid goes to any other position on the field.

Had this sit this year - Fed ball Varsity - Pitcher throwing mid-70s. Change-up on the inside corner, F2 set up on the outside corner. I take a nut shot dead on. After we resumed the game, the catcher apologized and Iwe move on. At the next half-inning, coach walks by and says "if he (F2) misses another one, I will get you another catcher."

That statement tells me that the coach understands that F2 had got to keep the ball off the PU. Failure to do so, can and will, cost him strikes. I don't care how good an umpire you are, when you are staring at a heater coming at you and you don't trust the catcher - it WILL impact your performance, every time.

[Tim C]

What a bunch of bull$hit answers. From a bunch of gutless umpires.

A short extrapolation:

I have been called "the arch enemy" of Little League baseball. I assume that those posting in this thread, that would eject or require anew catcher, work Small Diamond ball . . . if you don't, and would actually require a new catcher or dump the "phocker" . . . you would last exactly ONE game in my area.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Sep 22nd, 2004 at 10:39 PM]

[JJ]

Originally posted by Tim C
What a bunch of bull$hit answers. From a bunch of gutless umpires.

Tee

Thank you very much? I resemble that remark... unless it wasn't directed at me, then I think it's just awful.

[cowbyfan1]

Kind of a crazy thread, but I wouldn't even think of getting rid of a catcher for such.

I've just never seen a F2 who would intentionally miss a pitch just so I might get hit!

Now I've seen plenty who missed the pitch simply because they couldn't catch.

But most of the umpires I've seen get hit a lot of times are those who usually have poor position behind the plate.

Just my 2cents

Thanks
David

Getting hit is a part of being a blue but having a poor position has nothing to do with getting hit. Good or bad position you'll get hit eventuallly.

I have been hit when the catcher didn't move. I told the coach and cather that if that happened again he would be done for being a saftey issue. Part of being a blue is to take care of safety issues and if dumping a catcher makes that happen so be it.

If I got hit interntionally (though I have never seen it) f1 and f2 would be done.

I will never say anything to the catcher if he is busting his butt to stop the ball.

Now am I whimp because I look at it this way? Considering I got hit with a pitch that fractured my elbow and I got the game going again in less than a minute and then getting hit in the same elbow a week later and had that game going in less than a minute, I would think not.
A friend of mine, after the second one, told me he would have been looking to take off his plate gear if that happened to him. I told him the difference between he and I is that he would have been hit in the shoulder pad since he is about a foot shorter than me.

[David B]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1

Getting hit is a part of being a blue but having a poor position has nothing to do with getting hit. Good or bad position you'll get hit eventuallly.

I have been hit when the catcher didn't move. I told the coach and cather that if that happened again he would be done for being a saftey issue. Part of being a blue is to take care of safety issues and if dumping a catcher makes that happen so be it.

If I got hit interntionally (though I have never seen it) f1 and f2 would be done.

I will never say anything to the catcher if he is busting his butt to stop the ball.

Now am I whimp because I look at it this way? Considering I got hit with a pitch that fractured my elbow and I got the game going again in less than a minute and then getting hit in the same elbow a week later and had that game going in less than a minute, I would think not.
A friend of mine, after the second one, told me he would have been looking to take off his plate gear if that happened to him. I told him the difference between he and I is that he would have been hit in the shoulder pad since he is about a foot shorter than me.

As Dave Hensley said above, you might get hit with better positioning, but you won't get injured. Sure I get hit often, but its almost always a glancing blow, hurt maybe a few seconds.

That is what I was saying about positioning.

Thanks
David

[Kaliix]

Rich,
From what I remember of your posts, they are generally constructive and well written. I having trouble figuring out where your latest posts are coming from.

I can't seriously believe that you just tried to use grade school logic on me. I would expect the whole "catcher who can't catch" line from one of the middle schoolers I teach, not from you.

Quoting posts out of context is as transparent as it is bush league. You don't seriously think you made some sort of real point with that, do you?

Catchers miss balls all the time. I've been hit by some of those misses. As long as the kid moves to the ball, that is all I'm looking for.

When a catcher has been "catching" the ball without a problem for several innings, stopping balls in the dirt, balls way outside and leaping for the ones practically over his head, and then lets one go by without even flinching for it, it is not because he "can't catch". It is because he intentionally didn't try for the ball.

That is basically the situation that most people hear are talking about. It doesn't happen by accident and if anyone believes that, they are naive at best and just plain stupid at worst.

So to all, don't bring your macho bullsh&* attitudes into this or your emotional "you shouldn't be on the field" nonsense. Try and have a discusson like an adult.

Some days I think my Grandfather was right. His favorite phrase was "Most people are just basically stupid." Maybe he was right.

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The discussion on this thread, the half of it that actually has been germane, has been about catchers that CAN catch but are to lazy to make the effort to perform that catch.

That's a catcher that can't catch.

[tiger49]

As a former catcher and coach. I have a few things to say.

One going back to the original post. Seeing as this is a fall game most likely the kid never caught before in his life and doesn't understand the position. Talk to the coach in a calm manner about this and you will find often that the coach wants to hear what you have to say when they are trying things out. Also it could be because he had no one else available.

Second as a catcher(who liked to move around behind the plate) I HATED IT when a umpire would even lay a hand on my back. It often made me feel as if the umpire felt worried about being hit and needed to control me for protection. If after displaying my feelings, I felt as if the umpire was using me as a crutch I would quite often get "crossed up" with the pitcher.

Thus I would never put my hand on a catcher's back let alone grab the strap of the chest protector.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Kaliix
When a catcher has been "catching" the ball without a problem for several innings, stopping balls in the dirt, balls way outside and leaping for the ones practically over his head, and then lets one go by without even flinching for it, it is not because he "can't catch". It is because he intentionally didn't try for the ball.

That is basically the situation that most people hear [sic]are talking about. It doesn't happen by accident and if anyone believes that, they are naive at best and just plain stupid at worst.

Nobody has disagreed with ejecting a catcher who intentionally lets an umpire get hit. If you're crawfishing towards the claim that that's all you've ever been defending, then fine. Those of us who have questioned the tactic of ejecting a catcher who unintentionally allows an umpire to get hit one or more times have been clear and consistent in the what and the why of our position.

One final point in opposition to the tactic. The chances are greater than zero that the catcher you are ejecting is the best catcher the team has, and by forcing his replacement you're only making yourself more vulnerable to being nailed by errant, uncaught pitches. So, the "toss 'em if they can't protect me" mentality is not only unethical and unprofessional, it's ultimately generally unproductive.

I've found the most effective way to keep from getting battered in those situations in which the catcher can't keep up with his pitcher's stuff is to simply move back. If you get back far enough, you can still interpolate the strikezone reasonably well, and have time to dodge the PB/WP's as they come dribbling by. Plus, it gets the message across to the coach in a subtle but unambiguous way.

[Rich Ives]

Hey K, there are several of us who who seem to think various posters were advocating ejecting incompetent catchers, not just me. I guess that makes all of us stupid.

Go back and read the original posts. The quotes were not out of context. In fact, I skipped one of yours because, in it, you were clearly talking about a deliberrate miss.

A lazy catcher is not a catcher, he's just a player occupying the position.