Pitcher intertionally hits plate ump

jhawley · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 08:50am

QUESTION: During a weekenf PONY state finals tourney, the plate ump was hit by a pitch that the catcher did not catch. It was obvious that the pitch was thrown to intentionally hit the ump. Previous to the pitch the pitcher/catcher had a conference (no coach). The ump had just warned the catcher about her unsportmanlike attitude. The ump warned the pitcher, catcher and coach. Should he have ejected any or all involved? To me this is the same as intentionally hitting a batter. If I had been the plate ump I would have ejected the pitcher/catcher as the coach did not participate in the event.

IRISHMAFIA · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 09:10am

Quote:

Originally posted by jhawley
QUESTION: During a weekenf PONY state finals tourney, the plate ump was hit by a pitch that the catcher did not catch. It was obvious that the pitch was thrown to intentionally hit the ump. Previous to the pitch the pitcher/catcher had a conference (no coach). The ump had just warned the catcher about her unsportmanlike attitude. The ump warned the pitcher, catcher and coach. Should he have ejected any or all involved? To me this is the same as intentionally hitting a batter. If I had been the plate ump I would have ejected the pitcher/catcher as the coach did not participate in the event.

Dump the catcher, it's her job to stop the ball. However, I don't doubt by the time the coach is done questioning your integrity, intelligence and family tree, they will be gone too.

Striker991 · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 11:48am

Catcher was already warned...dump the catcher, warn the pitcher, warn the coach. Dump the coach when he mentions that your family tree has no branches. This technically constitutes violence against an umpire and should not be tolerated. Hard to dump the pitcher, because there is no real way to determine if she was in on it in this case. I've seen this happen in upper levels, but Pony?

IHSAIllini · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 12:09pm

Catcher and pitcher are gone, no questions. Pitcher attempts to intentionally cause bodily harm to an official? JMHO, this is equivalent to throwing a punch.

Skahtboi · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 01:55pm

My gut would tell me to go with what Steve said, though my head tells me that really I would be ejecting the catcher, warning the pitcher, and also probably dumping the coach when he mentions the simians living in my family tree! If he/she is nice about it, though, they can stay with a friendly warning.

bluezebra · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 03:13pm

All three go. The coach should know what's going on with his/her players. It's an obvious retaliatory pitch against the PU. Toss 'em all.

Bob

CecilOne · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Jun 25, 2003, 10:06am

As long as it is obvious and PROVABLE.

Dakota · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Jun 25, 2003, 02:01pm

This thread accepts as true that this was an intentional act.

If the umpire behind the plate ejects for this, he had better have more evidence that just a pitch the catcher didn't catch. Perhaps the prepitch conference is enough, but I'd also look for facial responses from the pitcher, etc.

This would be a good opportunity for his partner to step in and make the ejection. That way, it can't be viewed as "personal" on the part of the PU.

bluezebra · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Jun 25, 2003, 11:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
As long as it is obvious and PROVABLE.

Of course it was provable. The mitt fit.

How on Earth could you prove it? Torture the three to get a confession?

Batter hit a home run last time up and hot-dogged it around the bases. Next time up, pitcher plunks him/her in the ribs. Need proof?

Bob

[Edited by bluezebra on Jun 25th, 2003 at 11:19 PM]

CecilOne · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 30, 2003, 11:55am

"Of course it was provable. The mitt fit. "

I didn't say it wasn't provable, just that in general you need a strong case for an ejection based on intent.

"Batter hit a home run last time up and hot-dogged it around the bases. Next time up, pitcher plunks him/her in the ribs. Need proof?"

I guess I don't have a retaliatory mind.

"This would be a good opportunity for his partner to step in and make the ejection"
I'll deal with my own problems, thank you. But I do think it's good officiating for the partner to approach when the argument starts.

Dakota · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 30, 2003, 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
"This would be a good opportunity for his partner to step in and make the ejection"
I'll deal with my own problems, thank you. But I do think it's good officiating for the partner to approach when the argument starts.

If you are the one who just got plunked, you may have several problems, among them...

o You may not have observed everything. Your partner may have a better view of the catcher's reaction, perhaps the pitcher's reaction, too - especially if she turns around to try to hide her smile, etc. There may also be other player reaction that would indicate this was planned.

o You may be able to use the reinforcement that it was judged to be intentional by your partner.

o If the ejection comes from your partner, it takes away the notion that you are being retaliatory yourself without justification.

If I'm on the bases as see something in this kind of situation that leads me to believe it was intentional, I'll call time and discuss things with the PU, at a minimum.

CecilOne · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 30, 2003, 12:55pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
If you are the one who just got plunked, you may have several problems, among them...

o You may not have observed everything. Your partner may have a better view of the catcher's reaction, perhaps the pitcher's reaction, too - especially if she turns around to try to hide her smile, etc. There may also be other player reaction that would indicate this was planned.

o You may be able to use the reinforcement that it was judged to be intentional by your partner.

o If the ejection comes from your partner, it takes away the notion that you are being retaliatory yourself without justification.

If I'm on the bases as see something in this kind of situation that leads me to believe it was intentional, I'll call time and discuss things with the PU, at a minimum.

All good points which I agree with, especially the first, except that if I was as sure of the intent as the original poster, I'm not concerned about it looking personal. After all, it was. As I said, your partner approaching when an argument starts is good officiating and even a "good call, partner" would help.

I agree that we don't want any call or ejection to look like a personal problem; also we don't want to look like we didn't see what happened.