Intentional Hit Warnings?

[kwiggie]

:ranton:

Am I alone in thinking that it is completely useless to issue both pitchers a warning for intentionally hitting a batter? Isn't issuing a blanket warning to both pitchers for the first intentional hit batter rewarding the team that decides to "throw the first punch?" With no threat of retaliation what is the deterant?

opinions please

[semper_fi_72]

Am I alone in thinking that it is completely useless to issue both pitchers a warning for intentionally hitting a batter? Isn't issuing a blanket warning to both pitchers for the first intentional hit batter rewarding the team that decides to "throw the first punch?" With no threat of retaliation what is the deterant?

opinions please

The deterrent is you are preventing a player from possibly being seriously injured. You are taking charge of the situation and establishing your control to end it there and then.

[dumbdumb]

Well, IMHO for all this, it helps cut down and put a dent in the old Don Drysdale, "I'll hit 2 of yours for every one of mine and they won't be 220 hitters either" theory. This is why they argue when they get their warning. They cannot retaliate immediately and it puts the umps in the position of not allowing a team to even up the score first. However, all the teams know they just have to wait until the next day, or the next series if it is the last game of the present series, to retaliate and even up the score. I believe they even had the retaliation one year in a spring training game, since the original beaning took place the last time the 2 teams saw each other in the regular season the year before. It was a big brouha in the papers that spring if my memory serves me correctly.

I would imagine if this happens in any kind of professional game, the word gets passed along about the incident by the umpires to their superiors, so they can give a heads up to the next crew that has these 2 teams where bad blood started to boil from a previous series.

But to answer your thoughts "the warning just holds off the inevitable till another day"

Edited July 21, 2010 by dumbdumb

[Umpire in Chief]

IMO if you have a clearly intentional hit batter, go straight to the ejection, then warn both sides about anything further the pitcher and coach are gone.

A warning is a good tool if you think there might be something going on and someone gets hit, but are not positive.

[kwiggie]

The deterrent is you are preventing a player from possibly being seriously injured..

A player can be injured from the very first plunking, look at the BrewersPitt series 2 seasons ago that injured Braun (2 weeks IR) on the first intentional during the heat of the playoff race (yes, I am still bitter about that one).

You are taking charge of the situation and establishing your control to end it there and then.

imho, you are fueling the fire to be somthing bigger during the next meeting, for another crew.

Did you see the LAGiant's game last night and how that whole warning played out? Didn't the LA pitching coach end up getting ej for wondering why the hell his bench was issued a warning for the Giant's throwing at his players.

[Rich Ives]

Am I alone in thinking that it is completely useless to issue both pitchers a warning for intentionally hitting a batter? Isn't issuing a blanket warning to both pitchers for the first intentional hit batter rewarding the team that decides to "throw the first punch?" With no threat of retaliation what is the deterant?

opinions please

The pitcher that threw the first one often gets ejected on the spot.