What a Ploy.......

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Hard to imagine, JR.
If the runner will make it easily, then the runner beat the ball and prolly scored before the pitch plunked the batter. No?
...Or else the catcher plays the runner, or the batter interferes ?

Mick, iirc that exact play happened in a Yankees game in the 70's. The pitcher went to a full windup and they sent the runner. He admitted after that they already had a play set up for situations like that with right-handed batters. They throw at the hitter. If they hit him, fine. Men on first and third but no run. If they missed the batter, it still usually made the batter bail out and gave the catcher a clearer, easier shot at the runner.

[canadaump6]

Toss the "coach" as soon as you know he is encouraging pitchers to throw at the batter. People like that do not belong in youth sports.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Toss the "coach" as soon as you know he is encouraging pitchers to throw at the batter. People like that do not belong in youth sports.

I'd agree with you if I felt that he was having his pitcher throw at the batters. That wasn't the case. They were brush back pitches with a purpose.


Tim.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I'd agree with you if I felt that he was having his pitcher throw at the batters. That wasn't the case. They were brush back pitches with a purpose.


Tim.

I agree with Tim. there is a big difference with a pitcher brushing back a batter as opposed to a pitcher throwing at the batter.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I agree with Tim. there is a big difference with a pitcher brushing back a batter as opposed to a pitcher throwing at the batter.

Should this Little League "coach" even be teaching his players to brush back batters? His only motivation behind doing it was to get a cheap interference call. To me that is abusing the rules of the game. Sadly there is no rule that covers his sleazy tactics, but I know I would have a VERY short leash on him for any arguments over interference.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Should this Little League "coach" even be teaching his players to brush back batters? His only motivation behind doing it was to get a cheap interference call. To me that is abusing the rules of the game. Sadly there is no rule that covers his sleazy tactics, but I know I would have a VERY short leash on him for any arguments over interference.

Not that it matters for the purposes of this discussion, but this was a 16-18 Babe Ruth game.


Tim.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Should this Little League "coach" even be teaching his players to brush back batters? His only motivation behind doing it was to get a cheap interference call. To me that is abusing the rules of the game. Sadly there is no rule that covers his sleazy tactics, but I know I would have a VERY short leash on him for any arguments over interference.

I didn't think that it was LL as the throw down to F5 was for a pick-off (leading off is not allowed in LL). As far as drawing the INT call, once you as the umpire read what is going on, you simply make sure that if there really is INT, you call it. Obviously, the benefit of the doubt will go to the batter who is trying to avoid the pitch. And again, if the DC has a problem you simply remind the Rat that if his pitcher would keep the ball out of the batter's box, the batter would not have to avoid the pitch. One and only one reminder of that sort would be all that I would give. After that, the DC is treading on very thin ice.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I didn't think that it was LL as the throw down to F5 was for a pick-off (leading off is not allowed in LL).

Well, F2's in LL still throw down to pick off R3's, who can and usually do run down the line as soon as the ball reaches the batter. The fact that they can't lead off is irrelevant.