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?

"Son, you have to stop those. Got it?"

At the next half-inning, I am going to tell the coach that he needs to have a talk with his catcher.

If I get hit again, I take hold of the catcher's back strap and say something like "this strap right here makes a great handle. I am going to start using it to stop the ball if you don't."

If that doesn't fix the problem, "Coach, get me a catcher."

At that age, it would really pi$$ me off if the catcher didn't even attempt to move his glove and I took a straight shot on the arm.

I would dust the plate and tell him, "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!"

I'd also nicely let the coach know about it in between innings.

Had the same thing happen to me with a 16 or 17 year old. Before the game starts he's telling me what a good catcher he was etc. Take one in the left forearm. I got his so hard I couldn't move my fingers to work the indicator. Luckily there was ice availqable so I was able to ice it between innings. I kept telling him " #25 you better be swinging when you come up". However, By the time he did come up I was feeling better and told him I was no longer mad at him. Another time I was doing 13 and 14 year olds. The team changes pitchers and I get a kid who can't catch. I get hit about 4 or 5 times in an inning. Before the inning is over I tell the coach to get someone else in here because I have to work in the morning. Coach is mad at me because I embarassed his player. I told the coach no you embaraased your player because you put him in a situation he couldn't handle. I had a new catcher the next inning.

I had a frosh game bout 4 years ago, kid behind the dish was, well....lazy. Fastball from kid called "chewy", no glove....nuttin. Ball bury's in my cup, straight freaking shot....I was hot. I popped off, "CATCH THE FUC**** Ball!!!!!!!" Then after I caught my breath, told F2 that there is a reason for that strap attatched to his back, next time I am using him a a balloon protector. Just for the record, "chewy" was as big as me as a 9 year old, kid is now 6-7 and well over 300, football is his sport.....never could figure out a breaking ball:)

Over the years I have been hit twice on my right forearm by pitches to right-handed batters when the catchers have set up way to the outside and the pitch came down the middle of the strike zone and the cather made no move to catch it.

The second time I got hit, I ended going to the emergency room after the game because I thought I had broken a bone in my arm. In both cases, 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. The only good thing that I can say about the experience is that I dropped to the ground in pain before calling the pitch, and both times when the game resumed, I called the pitch that hit me a ball.

I have broken my left wrist twice while umpiring, once on an inside pitch where the catcher has yet to move to try to catch it (and I was so locked in I realized too late he was going to miss it), and the other on a foul ball that got back to my wrist in a hurry. It isn't fun, but it's part of the risk.

As for, I let the catcher's coach (know) that if the catcher did not start doing his job, that coach would have to find a new catcher. By what rule? You can certainly "suggest" it, but I would contend that even "suggesting" it is not part of your job.

You don't get to choose who they put in front of you. You get to choose what levels of ball you want or can work, but once you accept the job, shut up and do it. It's why they are paying you. We tell coaches that we don't want them umpiring. Well guess what, they don't want you coaching either. That's a deal I have with all coaches, either stated or implied: you don't umpire, I won't coach.

If umpiring were easy, even the coaches could do it. Either accept the risk that goes with the job, or get off the field.

I generally will not accept crappy baseball for this very reason. It is not worth the low pay and the risk of injury. I don't feel comfortable telling them to get another catcher but there are alternatives.

Go to the back of the mound to call the game. You are not supposed to tell them how to coach; well, they are not supposed to tell you how to umpire. The rules do not require the PU to stand behind the catcher.

I once went behind the screen to call the game when the catcher was particularly awful. They changed catchers and I came back to home plate.

I have an advantage that many of you do not have. I do not want to work this kind of baseball and am ecstatic if the league calls my assignor and says that they never want to see me again.

Peter

Actually they do, if there are two or more umpires:

OBR:
9.03 (a) If there is only one umpire, he shall have complete jurisdiction in administering the rules. He may take any position on the playing field which will enable him to discharge his duties (usually) behind the catcher, but sometimes behind the pitcher if there are runners). (b) If there are two or more umpires, one shall be designated umpire in chief and the others field umpires.

9.04 (a) The umpire in chief shall stand behind the catcher.

FED:

Rule 10-1-3: If there is only one umpire, he has complete jurisdiction in administering the rules and he may take any position he desires, preferably behind the catcher.

Rule 10-2-1: If there are two or more umpires, the umpire-in-chief shall stand behind the catcher.


Of course, protests will not be accepted for Rule 9 (OBR) or Rule 10 (FED) violations, so who is going to stop you?

The level was H.S. jr. varsity, meaning the skill level of the cathers were not suspect. But when a cather sets up outside and makes NO attempt to catch the ball, then an umpire has every right to eject a catcher for letting a pitch hit the umpire.

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 plate umpire is like the president of the USA, and the catcher is like the president's Secret Service detail. The catcher is paid to take a pitch for the plate umpire.

MTD, Sr.

But when a cather sets up outside and makes NO attempt to catch the ball, then an umpire has every right to eject a catcher for letting a pitch hit the umpire.

If I have reason to believe the pitcher and the catcher were intentionally trying to hurt me (based on other actions/reactions in the game), of course I can toss both of them, just as if the pitcher was throwing at a batter.

But anything short of that, and this is just a ridiculous statement.

I hate to get hit as much as the next guy, and have gone so far as to SUGGEST that it might be easier for me to call balls and strikes if I had confidence in a team's catcher. But under what rule do you declare it's acceptable to eject a catcher for being lazy?

I think what is ridiculous is a catcher not moving to catch a ball. A catcher knows that the umpire is behind him and has to realize that if he doesn't stop the ball, it will likely stop with the umpire becoming the backstop.

So if you know you have a person behind you and don't move to catch a ball that is going past you, knowing that it is going to hit said person, that sounds an awful lot like intentional to me.

I generally tell every catcher below H.S. JV two things. One, framing the ball is okay but don't pull it or it's a ball every time. Two, block everything because I don't want to get hit.

Whatever rule deals with unsportsmanlike conduct is what I'll use to eject a catcher if he lets me get hit more than once. And I don't mean that he moves but misses the ball, I mean if he just doesn't move. Do that more than once and you are gone.

Sorry
 

I can't agree with this.

It is my job to be locked, resolutely, and not move. I know I'm preaching to the choir here BUT I CANNOT MOVE and do my balls/strikes job. Unlike a batter or a catcher, I cannot move. Letting the pitcher throw AT ME because the catcher is lazy and not doing his job for the team is not a risk - that would be absolute stupidity. For any coach that thinks this is an inherent risk of umpiring, I would be willing to tie him to the fence and let his pitcher throw at him. I'll even loan him my gear before I tie him up.

I don't feel that suggesting (because it is not really a suggestion; it is an ultimatum) or ejecting is an act of coaching. I am a necessary part of the game - I need to be there. And if I am allowed to be wantonly hit, then I cannot do my job. During a particular game I cannot be readily replaced; catchers and pitchers can be replaced.

Me intentionally getting hit due to a catcher's laziness is not a risk nor a necessary part of the game. It is completely unacceptable. Unintentionally getting hit due to an uncontrollable foul ball is part of the game and yes, that is a risk.

I will never accept allowing a pitcher to wantonly throw at me, and any suggestion that I should allow such an act because it is an inherent risk of umpiring is completely asinine. I am not a target.

The catcher's mitt is the target and that mitt, under the volition of the catcher, should move so that every pitch hits the target - his mitt. If that mitt doesn't move and I become the target, something is amiss. And that catcher's tenure in front of me will not be long.

Atlanta Blue, either you didn't understand the situation or your comments were over the edge. If your comment about getting off the field was directed at me... then in the words of Corporal Clinger, "May the flies of a thousand camels infest your armpits." :D

Now hold still !!

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Sep 21st, 2004 at 04:37 PM]

Well said ditto from me.

Again, if the pitcher and the catcher are intentionally trying to hit me, different issue. Both of their little a$$es are out of here.

But a lazy catcher is not an unsportsmanlike catcher. Kids go brain dead now and then. I coach them every day, beleive me, it happens to the best of them. Shoot, I saw an NFL tight end shoot off the line this weekend, a good two counts ahead of his teammates, then turn around and look back and wonder why no one else was moving.

Are these actions "unsportsmanlike"? Of course not. If the catcher is moving outside and not protecting you, get behind him. If he isn't getting the inside corner, he'll figure it out real soon.

In 35 years, I have gotten hit by a pitch for which the catcher did not move at all a grand total of once. I have had bad catchers many times, even in just the past season.

It's not the umpire's job to tell the coach to get a new catcher. Some umps want to tell coaches to change pitchers just because their pitcher has hit (pick a number) of batters. "Thanks for your opinion, I'll manage my own team thank you."

If you think it's intentional, run him. If it's not, I will say it again, suck it up and do your job. Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss my point.

Re: Sorry
 

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.

Hey Dave, don't bring any macho crap into this. I have a total body stitch count of well over a hundred. I have done my job bleeding, exhausted, in great pain, and in need of surgery. I don't fear being hit and I have a pain thresh-hold that is better than most.

A catcher has one job and one job only and that is to be in front of that ball with his glove, his equipment or his body. If he vapor locks and doesn't move even a bit to that ball, he gets to make that mistake ONCE!

It happens again and it is intentional, whether he professes to have had a brain fart or not. He is getting tossed and if the manager has any problems with it, he'll go right after him. If you believe after a second occurence that the kid didn't do it intentionally, well... you know!

Ain't gonna happen!
 

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

gotta look at the level.........
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
Drop and block, good catchers know how to take care of us..just use a few FYC's. Ball a cock-shot or ring em on a ankle biter....that'll learn em.

For the record, I have never seen a catcher not move to catch a ball. I'd be surprised if more than a few people had.

To be clear, I am not talking about a catcher who can't catch, is slow to move or attempts but fails to block a ball. That is going to happen, no doubt.

I'm talking about a catcher who never even flinches toward the ball, and remains motionless while the ball sails on by. If that happens and I take a direct shot, that's the last time that mistake happens and the catcher stays in the game.

That is kinda my point. It almost never happens. To happen twice in the same game isn't coincidence.

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

Think again...I played with a catcher in Colt ball many years ago who would call for a ball in the dirt and "miss" it when he thought the ump wasn't very good. Teenagers have a different perspective on life...

It does not only happen with teenagers. Each year in my association, we have at least one ugly incident where a college or men's league catcher deliberately misses the ball in order to get back at an umpire.

The last time that I used an FYC (2000 or 2001) concerned a catcher missing the ball deliberately. It happened in the eighth inning and everybody knew what had happened.(My partner came to me between innings and asked why I had not ejected the catcher.) Instead, I waited until he came to bat in the top of the 10th inning. I told the catcher (of the other team) to line up 6, 12, and then 18 inches outside for three pitches. I called them strikes all three times. When the batter voiced his displeasure on the last pitch, I ejected him. I should have ejected him in the eighth inning and it was a mistake to handle it the way that I did, but I sent a big message.

I have been faced with less than competent catchers even at high levels. Sometimes the good catcher gets hurt and the backup is no good. In men's league games, I have gone to the mound or even behind the screen on one occasion. In college ball, I have done something which may work for the rest of you:

Use the scissors and position your crotch behind the catcher's helmet. In other words, if the catcher lines up outside, you are out there with him. You are using his body to block the ball. Place both arms behind you like a little league umpire. Get down as far as possible so that your head can barely see over his shoulder. Your head should be at the same level of the catcher's head.

If the catcher moves on the pitch, move with him. Forget about good mechanics or seeing the ball. If you do not see the pitch (and that will happen 2 or 3 times a half inning with these mechanics), call a ball. Eventually, the coach will get the message and put in a catcher who can at least block the ball.

Peter

Osborne.........
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are a ruthless SOB, I would love to work with ya!!!!!!

Didn't miss your point at all. Hopefully you didn't miss mine either.

NOT THE SAME
 

Now that wouldn't be very manly... would it? :) Course I've seen volleyball players get knocked out, noses and fingers broken. What a bunch of wimps! Of couse that was the players and not the official.

Hahahaha,
 

I am completely astonished that any umpire would dump a catcher along these lines.

Setting up an umpire to get hit INTENTIONALLY is one thing, just getting hit becasue the catcher is bad is another.

ANY of you that say you'd dump the catcher are truely, as David stated, whimps.

They had trouble finding officials for table tennis at this years Olympics . . . there are still are places for you guys to work.

Lah Me!

Tee

Some of you guys have no place being on the field. Your job is to officiate. Not get revenge on players. Absurd.

Tim and mcrowder,
Who exactly said that they would dump a catcher because they were bad, ie. the catcher moved to block/catch/stop a ball but missed. I don't believe anyone did.

You guys are just trolling...

Gee, I guess a lot of us can't read because:

Jumpmaster
Sep 20th, 2004 11:16 AM
“If that doesn't fix the problem, "Coach, get me a catcher."”

Kaliix
Sep 20th, 2004 11:34 AM
“You don't move again, and I'll take it as you doing it intentionally and I will toss you!"”

gordon30307
Sep 20th, 2004 12:11 PM
“Before the inning is over I tell the coach to get someone else in here”

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Sep 21st, 2004 02:13 PM
“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.”

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Sep 21st, 2004 03:14 PM
“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.”

DownTownTonyBrown
Sep 22nd, 2004 03:15 Pm
“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.”

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.

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.

I've heard worse here.
 

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.

<i>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.</i>

That's a catcher that can't catch.

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.

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.

all right, I'll bite
 

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.

Hahahaha,
 

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]

Re: Hahahaha,
 

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

Re: Ain't gonna happen!
 

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.

Re: Re: Ain't gonna happen!
 

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

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.

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.

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 <b>unintentionally</b> 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 <b>more</b> 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.

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.

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.

<i> Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown </i>

<b> 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? </b>

IMO, the important point is "<b> 15-17 year olds </b>"
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 <b> which result in the normal cource of baseball </b>, 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

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.

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.

"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.

Re: Re: Sorry
 

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

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

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.

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.

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?.

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]

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.

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

In my opinion:

It's unsportsmanlike to INTENTIONALLY LET IT THE UMPIRE.

It is NOT unsportmanlike to be an a-hole.

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?

In this entire thread, fool is the only name I have used and that was after four pages of posts trying to keep this logical and on track.

Look at your quotes below and tell me your not calling names, being "macho" and don't have some sort of inferiority complex going on. I'm also not so sure that your how high your post rates on the "professional scale".

I've tried to keep it straight forward and logical. You guys can't keep it that way because you know, in the end, in the very specific circumstances I have spoken about, you can't argue with the logic.

It's called chaffe, and you guys are doing it well.

All;

I've already stated what I do when the catcher cannot catch: move behind the mound or alter your mechanics to get directly behind the catcher no matter where he is. Yet, with all of the entertainment that we have had with this thread, I thought that I might add one more story from my experience. (In order to create more entertainment, of course.)

I was doing 16-18 year old fall ball game and in the top of the first inning a pitch came in high and inside. I took a shot off the mask and the ball spun the mask off of my face. No one was on base and the catcher made no effort to catch the ball. As it spun off my face, the plastic edge of the mask slid across my cheek and opened up a gash which started bleeding profusely.

The catcher said "Sorry blue, In fall ball, I don't try to stop the ball when no runners are on base."

Since I believe the blood rule applies equally to officials as well as players, I left the game for the emergency room and my partner got to finish it by himself. I have no idea what he did to the catcher but he heard the same remark that I did.

My bill at the emergency room was $450 for three stitches to my face. Since this was early in the fall season, I was unable to work any more fall ball because I could not wear a mask. My personal health insurance deductible was $500, so this all came out of my pocket and the association's inusurance refused to pay. Likewise, the league insurance did not cover umpires.

My total fall pay that year was $280. Therefore, I was in the hole $170 for the fall season. While I have never ejected a catcher who cannot catch, I certainly sympathize with those who advocate that position. For me, I just turn down most of the crap that is offered to me in the fall. I have found that the lackadasical attitude towards fall play is not conducive to good umpiring or safety.

Peter

What are you telling us?
 

What does this mean?

You recovered in 3-5 seconds and the game continued?

You ejected them within 3-5 seconds?

How did they "find out real fast that" you recognized their lack of a catch as an intentional act?

Does "NO questions asked" mean you tossed them and they didn't say anything or that you left them in and called all balls... or something else?

With the repetition of the "SUCK IT UP" statement, I'm assuming you left these two catchers in the game... but I'm not certain. Not that I would imply that one action or the other tells us anything about the strength of your gender portrayl BUT WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DID, once you were intentionally hit?