BigUmp56 Last night during the first few innings of my game, every time the home team would allow a runner to get to third, one or two pitches to the next batter were thrown clearly inside the lines of the batters box in what I was sure was an attempt to drive the batter back out of the box. Each time, the batter would bail out to avoid the pitch. Then the catcher would come up and attempt a throw to pick off R3. Every time this happened, the rat b@$t@d manager would argue for an INT call because the batter stepped back. There was no doubt from the way he argued the rule that he knew the rule well and that this was a designed ploy to draw an INT call. It took me by surprise, and I'm curious how you all would have handled it. Tim.
dash_riprock I'd tell him the batter is allowed to get out of the way of the pitch. In fact, he is required to do so.
tibear I'd tell the coach the batter had two options on the pitch: 1) Stand in the box and get hit or 2) Step back and avoid the pitch The batter made the correct decision, what is the issue again??
jkumpire The third time I heard that from the dugout, the manager goes. Did you think about doing that, or something else to get the rat to quiet down?
PeteBooth BigUmp56 wroteLast night during the first few innings of my game, every time the home team would allow a runner to get to third, one or two pitches to the next batter were thrown clearly inside the lines of the batters box in what I was sure was an attempt to drive the batter back out of the box. By clearly inside do you mean a deliberate attempt to hit the batter.? Sure sounds like it and you could have a "nightmare" on your hands If this was done continuous then I would probably warn both teams at this point before something "ugly" happens. If this team was constantly throwing the ball CLEARLY inside it is a matter of time before the "other" teams F1 "plunks" someone. I have seen it happen. I am not saying that F1 does not have the right to pitch inside but from your OP it doesn't sound like F1 was merely pitching inside but throwing a "purpose" pitch which could lead to trouble. Pete Booth
BigUmp56 They were definitely "purpose" pitches, Pete. The first couple of times it happened I simply told him that in my judgment there was no interference. Later, he came out to "explain" to me that if the batter doesn't stay still in the box and makes any other movement, including stepping out of the box, that he's interfered. I then told him that if there was one more instance of him trying to draw an INT call this way, I'd eject him and his pitcher. Tim.
UmpJM BigUmp56 wrote... I then told him that if there was one more instance of him trying to draw an INT call this way, I'd eject him and his pitcher. Tim. Good call, Tim. JM
ozzy6900 BigUmp56 wroteLast night during the first few innings of my game, every time the home team would allow a runner to get to third, one or two pitches to the next batter were thrown clearly inside the lines of the batters box in what I was sure was an attempt to drive the batter back out of the box. Each time, the batter would bail out to avoid the pitch. Then the catcher would come up and attempt a throw to pick off R3. Every time this happened, the rat b@$t@d manager would argue for an INT call because the batter stepped back. There was no doubt from the way he argued the rule that he knew the rule well and that this was a designed ploy to draw an INT call. It took me by surprise, and I'm curious how you all would have handled it. Tim. "Hey coach, if your pitcher would keep the ball out of the batter's box, that wouldn't happen!"
RPatrino Tim, you handled it properly, warn then eject. It has been my experience that if you ignore something as serious as this, things will eventually become unmanagable. As one of our most famous umpires, Barnie Fife would say, "nip it in the bud, Andy!"
mick BigUmp56 wroteThey were definitely "purpose" pitches, Pete. The first couple of times it happened I simply told him that in my judgment there was no interference. Later, when he came out to "explain" to me that if the batter doesn't stay still in the box and makes any other movement, including stepping out of the box, that he's interfered. I then told him that if there was one more instance of him trying to draw an INT call this way, I'd eject him and his pitcher. Tim. Good call, Tim. Ordering the throw at the batter was a deliberate unsporting act.
Jurassic Referee PeteBooth wrote By clearly inside do you mean a deliberate attempt to hit the batter.? Sure sounds like it and you could have a "nightmare" on your hands I am not saying that F1 does not have the right to pitch inside but from your OP it doesn't sound like F1 was merely pitching inside but throwing a "purpose" pitch which could lead to trouble. Follow up question.......from the uninitiated..... R3 steals home......would make it easily but pitcher plunks batter.....call? If you felt that the pitcher deliberately hit the batter, would that make any difference to the call?
mbyron Jurassic Referee wrotePeteBooth wroteFollow up question.......from the uninitiated..... R3 steals home......would make it easily but pitcher plunks batter.....call? If you felt that the pitcher deliberately hit the batter, would that make any difference to the call? Ball is dead, BR to first, R3 returns. How many times do you think they'll try this? 🙄
mick Jurassic Referee wrotePeteBooth wroteFollow up question.......from the uninitiated..... R3 steals home......would make it easily but pitcher plunks batter.....call? If you felt that the pitcher deliberately hit the batter, would that make any difference to the call? 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 ?
Jurassic Referee mick wroteJurassic Referee wrote 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 canadaump6 wroteToss 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.
DG Jurassic Referee wrotePeteBooth wroteFollow up question.......from the uninitiated..... R3 steals home......would make it easily but pitcher plunks batter.....call? If you felt that the pitcher deliberately hit the batter, would that make any difference to the call?Sure. Dead ball, runner returns and pitcher is tossed. warnings are for uncertainty, if I am sure he hit the batter deliberately he is gone. If not sure, but suspicious, put a warning on the pitcher and return the runner. I would expect the pitcher to throw a pitch a RH batter would bail on if a runner is attempting to steal home. The difference between a purpose pitch and a hit batter could be inches.
ozzy6900 BigUmp56 wroteI'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 ozzy6900 wroteI 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 canadaump6 wroteShould 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.