Umpire HIT BY PITCH

[Kaliix]

Rich,
You have greatly mistaken my resolve if you think that I will not go back and put those quotes in context.

The first jumpmaster quote was in direct reply to, and was posted directly after the original post in this thread. The original post stated that the catcher didn't even attempt to put up his glove. That means he let the ball go by intentionally. As jump said, you tell the catcher, "Son, you have to stop those. Got it?" If that doesn't fix the problem, "Coach, get me a catcher."

The second quote was mine, also in direct response to the original post. Again, the catcher didn't move for the ball. Despite whether you want to call it lazy, it is still a fully intentional act. Normal reaction any baseball player to a ball coming towards them if they are on defense is to catch the ball. You don't move and you had to think about it and do that intentionally. So, me to the catcher, "You better move and attempt to block everything. You don't move again, and I'll take it as you doing it intentionally and I will toss you!"

Third quote by gordon was him relating a story about a catcher who couldn't catch and he gets hit 4 or 5 times in one inning. Despite that he never stated he would eject the catcher. He did request that the coach put someone in there who could actually field the position. Now we could certainly discuss if that was the right thing to do, but never did he state he would eject that catcher.

The fourth quote by Mark was relating a story about the two times he had been hit by catchers who did not move for the ball. So, “I let the catcher's coach that if the catcher did not start doing his job, that coach would have to find a new catcher.” Again, an intentional miss.

The fourth quote by Mark was a reply to AtlBlue in reference to his original story about catchers who did not move for the ball. Even in the quote he states that as long as the catcher is making any sort of effort that's fine. "I do not have problem getting hit once in a while when the catcher is attempting to do his job to the best of his ability. But when a cather makes NO attempt to do his job behind the plate and the umpire is getting hit with pitches that, with ordinary effort, should be caught by the catcher, then that catcher does not deserve to stay in the game."

The last quote by DTB was in part of a long running commentary between him and AtlBlue. At the beginning of his post, he details the four times he was hit this year with the catcher making absolutely no effort. He even implied that the first three were somewhat understandable. It was the last one where the kid could actually catch and just choose not to move that pi$$ed him off and lead to that start of this thread. That was the original story that started this thread and that was the circumstance that lead to him stating “Coach, you want a good job? Get a catcher that does a good job. Simple. Call it an ejection if you want. I think it is just a way of making the game go smoothly and allowing me to do a proper job.” Yet again, it was a quote in reference to a catcher who made no attempt to move.

So as I said before, you attempts to quote people out of context is transparent to those of us who have sufficient reading comprehension skills. All of the people who you quoted said that they wouldn't even eject on the first instance of the catcher intentionally not moving. If would have to happen again for an ejection to occur.

Sorry Rich, but you need to read more carefully and come with a better argument than what you have.

Originally posted by 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.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Worked a youth (15-17 year olds) fall league game this weekend. It was fun; pay was small; it was a bright beautiful sunny day, great for baseball.

However I got hit... and obviously didn't want to get hit.

New catcher entered the game in about the 7th inning (game went 10). He looked half asleep to begin with and I found him to be overall, very lazy. He was a lefty so his mitt was on the right hand. Pitch was at most 12 inches inside on a right handed batter. Catcher would have had to reach across his body to catch the pitch... he didn't even attempt to put his glove up. Pitch hits me on the outside of my left elbow. @@#$!!&%^#@%!$&. Pitcher was not throwing at me; catcher was just being lazy.

I've had this happen a few times this year where I felt the catcher was a relatively rookie and just being lazy - no intention to hit me, just inexperience and laziness. Thank God most of them hit protected areas. Bone shots to wrists, forearms, elbows are the worst.

It sure messes up my game because now, for the next couple of innings, I flinch on every pitch that I'm not confident is going to hit the catcher.

What have been your responses after getting hit similarly? Do you eject? Do you just suck it up? Do you say anything to the catcher? to the coach?

IMO, the important point is " 15-17 year olds "
Depending upon the talent level some 17 yr olds can bring the heat.

IMO we all take our share of bruises meaning balls bouncing in the dirt, deflecting off F2's mit on a Foul tip attempt or the ball fouled off B1's bat. IMO, that is what we are expected to absorb.

When F2 can't catch especially in the 15-17 yr. old range is a different story. IMO, it's not being a wimp if you do not want to take a FLUSH hit on an 85 mile per hour fastball because F2 didn't move his mit or doesn't know how to block the ball.

The time for trying out new F2's is for practice not Game time. Unless you wear armor (and even then), they do not make equipment that will absorb a Flush hit from an 85/90 mile perhour fast ball. You will GO down.

Therefore, in summary, yes we have to stay in the slot and aborb hits which result in the normal cource of baseball , however, if F2 can't catch that's a different story. IMO it has nothing to do with being macho or a wimp. They don't pay enough for me to be out of my regular job for any length of time.

Pete Booth

[Rich Ives]

K - Ah - I have it now - you think the "lazy" misses were intentional.

Bad assumptions. As most of us know, some players flat out can't play that position. Some are just starting and haven't really learned how yet. Sometimes they just blank out. Sometimes the pitcher crosses them up. Sometimes they're POed at their coach and screw up on purpose. "Get the ump" misses are quite rare because the players know the consequences.

Try Valium.

[Kaliix]

I thought I was very clear on that. There is no such thing as a "Lazy Miss". The catcher either tries for the ball or he doesn't. As Yoda, would say "Do or no do, there is no try."

The catcher either moves for the ball or he doesn't. If he doesn't move, it is intentional, period.

He gets to make that mistake once. Next time he won't be playing.

Originally posted by Rich Ives
K - Ah - I have it now - you think the "lazy" misses were intentional.

Bad assumptions. As most of us know, some players flat out can't play that position. Some are just starting and haven't really learned how yet. Sometimes they just blank out. Sometimes the pitcher crosses them up. Sometimes they're POed at their coach and screw up on purpose. "Get the ump" misses are quite rare because the players know the consequences.

Try Valium.

[Atl Blue]

"The catcher either moves for the ball or he doesn't. If he doesn't move, it is intentional, period.
"

Spoken by someone who has spent very little time working with the teen aged mind. Not moving is in no way the same thing as intentional. Intentional means, beleive it or not, "with intent". Not moving MIGHT be intentional, but it might also be forgetful, brain dead, zoning out, not concentrating, let the mind wander, or a myriad of other ways of saying, "being a teenager". I coach a high school football team. Kids make dozens of mistakes in a game. Almost of none of them are "intentional", kids forget assignments, miss assignments, get confused about what they are supposed to do so they do nothing.

Good grief, I have seen adults do the same thing driving a car. They aren't sure what to do in a situation, so they do nothing.

Equating not moving with "intentional" is certainly being out of touch with reality.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Wow, this thread really separates the men from the boys. Atlanta Blue's comments are spot on. You guys bragging about threatening to eject a catcher just because you get hit a couple of times are, simply put, wimps.

What you're advocating is the moral equivalent of a batter charging a pitcher after getting hit. Juvenile and totally inappropriate.

Think about it - batters get hit by pitches with regularity, and they wear far less protective equipment than umpires, and they are expected to suck it up and take their base. And for the most part, that's exactly what they do.

HBP's are a part of the game, and umpires' getting hit occasionally is a part of the game, too. It's an occupational hazard, just like Atlanta Blue said. With proper positioning, proper mechanics, and proper protective equipment, serious injury is virtually completely avoidable, and those annoying bumps and bruises can be minimized.

If you can't stand the heat, there's always volleyball officiating.

The voice of sanity in what I'm sure will be an enjoyable thread to read.

[Kaliix]

AtlBlue,
I teach middle school and deal with 13 and 14 years olds every day. My daughter will be 14 in a few months.

You say you coach football. How many times have you seen a catchable pass thrown to a receiver only to see him not move an inch to the ball (assuming he saw the ball and wasn't being held). How many times have you seen the ball hiked and a player remain frozen, not moving, while the play is going on. He may hesitate slightly, but I've never seen one just stand there.

Even if a catcher for some ungodly reason freezes and never moves the to ball and it hits me, I wouldn't eject him. But be sure that I would tell him that that better never happen again. If it happens twice, after being warned not to do it, he is jeopardizing my safety. At that point, the catcher, on the second occurence, has left it up to me to determine intent. Fool me once shame on me, but you won't get a second chance.

I can't imagine that a teenager is that damn brain dead that after being warned they would still let a pitch go by and not a move a muscle for it. The second time it happens, in my judgement, I consider it intentional and he is gone. There needs to be consequences for actions, plain and simple.

When all is said and done, I have a hard time believing that I'll ever have to eject a catcher for that. In all my years of playing baseball, watching baseball and now umpiring baseball, I don't think I ever remember this even happening

Originally posted by Atl Blue
"The catcher either moves for the ball or he doesn't. If he doesn't move, it is intentional, period.
"

Spoken by someone who has spent very little time working with the teen aged mind. Not moving is in no way the same thing as intentional. Intentional means, beleive it or not, "with intent". Not moving MIGHT be intentional, but it might also be forgetful, brain dead, zoning out, not concentrating, let the mind wander, or a myriad of other ways of saying, "being a teenager". I coach a high school football team. Kids make dozens of mistakes in a game. Almost of none of them are "intentional", kids forget assignments, miss assignments, get confused about what they are supposed to do so they do nothing.

Good grief, I have seen adults do the same thing driving a car. They aren't sure what to do in a situation, so they do nothing.

Equating not moving with "intentional" is certainly being out of touch with reality.

[jicecone]

Twice, in close to 20 years, I have had catchers miss pitches that I deemed intentional. Both catchers stayed in the game approximately 3-5 seconds after I got hit, with NO questions asked. They knew it and they found out real fast that so did I.

I don't care how much you get paid or not for officiating or if it is your regular job or not. When you accepted that assignment and walked on the field it became your regular job for the next 1-3 hrs. You were obligated to perform your duties as an official, and in a professional manner.

I agree, "quit being a wimp."

If your doing a league that the talent is that bad than no one is going to object to a little constructive or pro active suggestions to helping you live longer. So, forget the "I'm not there to coach bull". How about doing it for self preservation. The fact that the league is that bad, I just can believe they won't be open to some constructive advice.

Your other choices! Go behind the mound or don't do those games.

But for god sakes, "Quit whinning"

Many of you wouldn't last a minute officiating Ice Hockey, where sometimes they can not only, not play, but not skate, not shoot or not check. Then your looking behind you at all times and all ways.

Next thing you know people will be saying its acceptable to throw players out of the game because they are soo bad that the games are taking too long and you have to stand on your feet too long and it is extra wear and tear on you and your getting tired and you would have never taking the game if you knew it was going to be this bad and Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

As already implied here, SUCK it up, Shut up, or find a different sport to officiate.

[DG]

I "caught" a fastball today, between my left arm and chest protector. I threw it back to pitcher, and took a 15 second break. Catcher (HS age) was set up outside, pitch came inside, he didn't move. Between innings the coach asked me how he missed it. I told him he never moved on it, he must have been crossed up. Earlier, someone said if a catcher does not move, it was intentional. It was not today.

[dddunn3d]

All you guys are confusing a catcher who CAN'T catch with one who WON'T catch. I would hesitate to run a catcher who is indeed in over his head, but I would tend to believe that the catcher who won't (or refuses) to catch wouldn't last long in my game.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
All you guys are confusing a catcher who CAN'T catch with one who WON'T catch. I would hesitate to run a catcher who is indeed in over his head, but I would tend to believe that the catcher who won't (or refuses) to catch wouldn't last long in my game.

No.

The only ejectable action should be DELIBERATELY letting the ball hit the umpire.

Many are arguing that a lazy or incompetent catcher can be ejected. You can't eject an incompetent player ("OK Pitch, that's four walks this inning, you're outa here" or "You call that a swing - you're GONE") - right?.

[dddunn3d]

What is the difference between a catcher who won't catch and one who deliberately lets the ball go. What I mean is that a catcher who won't catch makes a conscious decision not to catch the pitch. Therefore, it is a deliberate action on his part. It makes no difference to me if he is making this decision to get back at me, his coach, his pitcher, etc. It is unsportsman-like conduct and will result in his ejection.

I do agree however that a catcher should not be run because of incompetence. Several previous posts have indicated effective methods of hinting that perhaps the defensive coach should reconsider his choice of catchers.


By the way, how does one become a "senior member" on this board? Is it a function of number of posts, etc?

[Edited by dddunn3d on Sep 26th, 2004 at 02:10 PM]

[Kaliix]

Why is it that some people here feel like they have to bring some sort of macho, you are a wimp, suck it type attitude to this discussion. Are your inferiority complexes really that bad? Is your ability to deal with any kind of emotion, logic or constructive discussion so poor that you have to cover it up by "being strong like bull", calling people names and putting them down for not being a man.

You guys amuse me. I don't care about being hit and I have the scars/surgeries to prove it. One of my favorite jobs was being bouncer at local club. I jumped into many a fracass with little regard for whether I'd take a punch, loose teeth or end up in the hospital. So take you wimp talk somewhere it's appropriate.

If you think that a catcher has a brain freeze because he didn't move a ball hit you, fine. I'd keep him in the game in most cases, as well.

If it happens twice and let him stay in the game, you are a fool.

[Rich Ives]

What is the difference between a catcher who won't catch and one who deliberately lets the ball go.

In my opinion:

It's unsportsmanlike to INTENTIONALLY LET IT THE UMPIRE.

It is NOT unsportmanlike to be an a-hole.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Why is it that some people here feel like they have to bring some sort of macho, you are a wimp, suck it type attitude to this discussion. Are your inferiority complexes really that bad? Is your ability to deal with any kind of emotion, logic or constructive discussion so poor that you have to cover it up by "being strong like bull", calling people names and putting them down for not being a man.

You guys amuse me. I don't care about being hit and I have the scars/surgeries to prove it. One of my favorite jobs was being bouncer at local club. I jumped into many a fracass with little regard for whether I'd take a punch, loose teeth or end up in the hospital. So take you wimp talk somewhere it's appropriate.

If you think that a catcher has a brain freeze because he didn't move a ball hit you, fine. I'd keep him in the game in most cases, as well.

If it happens twice and let him stay in the game, you are a fool.

Kaliix,

This discussion has NOTHING to do about being macho, being a man or even the "NAME" you have chosen to use, "fool".

It is about being as professional as possible at ALL times when officiating. Not just when YOU feel like it.

Get it?