Threatening coach

[Umpirechick1]

13U pre-season scrimmage game, playing by NFHS rules.  Runner on 3rd, and F2 is constantly throwing down to 3rd after the pitch trying to pick off the runner.  (He'd been doing this most of the game when there was a runner on)  After a pitch, which the batter didn't swing at, F2 throws down and it was a bad throw (off target, but nothing major). There was no interference from the batter, but the coach was definitely not agreeing with me.  I hear the standard "He's gotta get out of the way Blue!" and then to F2 "STOP throwing around him or over him or whatever else you're doing... If he doesn't move, just hit in the back with the ball.  It will be interference every time!"  F2 is a little surprised at that, he turns back toward the plate and asks me "Is that true?"  I simply said "No" because I'm not going into an explanation in the middle of an at-bat.  The 3rd base coach is livid, says something to the coach, but at the moment I didn't say anything.  I'd planned to say something between innings, but decided not to being that it wasn't a regulation game.  Now, I'm wondering if I did the right thing.  The last thing I want to happen is a kid getting hurt - and especially because I didn't say something to the coach.

Basically, the coach wanted F2 to be able to stand up and throw immediately without even giving the batter time to move.  

Suggestions?

[blue23ll]

Even if the batter gets hit in the box on a throw to third, it's not interference unless the batter does something to interfere. 

[maven]

35 minutes ago, Umpirechick1 said:

Basically, the coach wanted F2 to be able to stand up and throw immediately without even giving the batter time to move.  

Suggestions?

Make sure you know the batter INT rule. For example, you should know that if the batter DOES move, that increases, not decreases, the likelihood of his interfering. You want to know 7-3-5, especially a, b, and c, like the proverbial back of your hand. Not a bad idea to brush up on the penalties, too.

As for handling the coach, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, he didn't ask you a question, he just wanted to gripe. On the other, instructing his catcher to drill an opponent at close range is unsporting and probably needs to be addressed. You addressed it with F2 directly, which is probably adequate if nothing came of it.

[grayhawk]

I'll spoil it for you.  This is NOT batter's interference:

 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2015 NFHS Baseball Case Book:

7.3.5 Situation E:  With less than two outs, R2 and B2 at the plate, R2 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R2 return to second? RULING:  B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

[scrounge]

8 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2015 NFHS Baseball Case Book:

 

7.3.5 Situation E:  With less than two outs, R2 and B2 at the plate, R2 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R2 return to second? RULING:  B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

 

In the 2016 case book, too...

[Umpirechick1]

@grayhawk that's the exact clip that I thought of when he said that!!  He made another comment saying "It's always interference when you hit the batter" or something stupid like that, and that's why I answered the catcher. 

@maven I was also in the fence about addressing it with the coach. I'm 99.9% sure that I would address it in an actual game. I would address it from the same perspective you mentioned as well as safety. 

[Richvee]

Pre season scrimmage and the coaches are livid? Oh boy.  

I think you did the right thing just saying "no" to the catcher. I'm thinking, maybe during warmups next inning, I can get in a little conversation with the F2 and try to explain the BI rule a bit.

And just maybe...If the coaches had settled down by the end of the game, MAYBE talk to them and try to educate on the rule.....A big MAYBE. Have to play it by ear, if you know what I mean.

[ricka56]

5 hours ago, Umpirechick1 said:

"STOP throwing around him or over him or whatever else you're doing... If he doesn't move, just hit in the back with the ball.  It will be interference every time!"  

I suggest that you don't let this statement go unchallenged. The coach is ignorant of the rules and telling his F2 to risk injury to the batter by throwing at him. I'm having words with that coach. That coach will have to re-instruct his F2 not to throw at the batter or else he's going to the parking lot (even if it is a scrimmage). I'd also put F2 on notice that if he follows the coaches bad advice, he doesn't get to play anymore. 

[ricka56]

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I'll spoil it for you.  This is NOT batter's interference:

 

No BI, but WTF is it ? F2 basically, intentionally punched the batter in the stomach with the ball. UC/EJ ? 

[Senor Azul]

This play happened during a game between the Durham Bulls and the Pawtucket Red Sox (AAA) on May 1, 2015. The catcher was Humberto Quintero who has played with 5 different major league teams and was 35 years old at the time of this game. In other words, he is old enough and experienced enough to know better. There were no ejections and no error was charged.

Later in the same game Quintero made a slide into second and took out the Durham second baseman which caused both benches to clear.

The plate umpire was Chad Whitson. The Durham batter was Luke Maile, the catcher for the Bulls. As fortune would have it, Durham did win the game.

[ricka56]

If no action was taken against F2 and if I was the batter, I would consider trying to draw a CI on the next pitch by swinging at F2's mitt and seeing how many fingers I could break.

I'm sure that this umpire was surprised by what F2 did and didn't want to over-officiate the event, but not penalizing something like this can (did) lead to retaliation and escalation. 

[Welpe]

At this age I think nipping this in the bud immediately is inappropriate. But that's just me.

[maven]

7 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

This play happened during a game between the Durham Bulls and the Pawtucket Red Sox (AAA) on May 1, 2015. The catcher was Humberto Quintero who has played with 5 different major league teams and was 35 years old at the time of this game. In other words, he is old enough and experienced enough to know better. There were no ejections and no error was charged.

Later in the same game Quintero made a slide into second and took out the Durham second baseman which caused both benches to clear.

The plate umpire was Chad Whitson. The Durham batter was Luke Maile, the catcher for the Bulls. As fortune would have it, Durham did win the game.

For pro baseball:

This is close enough to a baseball play to rule a "no call" and play on (bush is not illegal). I would then anticipate 2 consequences. First, the pro game polices itself: Quintero should expect one in the ribs on a subsequent plate appearance. Second, the league could levy a fine for the unsporting nature of the "play." Perhaps Senor knows whether these occurred last season.

Plays like this by pro players need to be handled by pro umpires using written and unwritten rules for pro ball. They are not a suitable guide for amateur baseball: neither of the consequences I mention should happen in amateur baseball. The only takeaway for amateur umpires is that this play was correctly ruled NOT batter interference. It is not batter INT at any level: and in amateur ball, at least at the levels I work, I would likely eject F2 for this act.

[JaxRolo]

Needs to be stopped immediately.

[noumpere]

16 hours ago, Umpirechick1 said:

 The 3rd base coach is livid, says something to the coach, but at the moment I didn't say anything.

Basically, the coach wanted F2 to be able to stand up and throw immediately without even giving the batter time to move.  

Suggestions?

"Coach, if he does that I will be forced to eject him and you for unsporting behavior".

 

and, if one coach is livid at another and saying something, I'm probably addressing that right away.

[LMSANS]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

"Coach, if he does that I will be forced to eject him and you for unsporting behavior".

 

and, if one coach is livid at another and saying something, I'm probably addressing that right away.

This is exactly what I was thinking for any level I do.

[Specks]

I would eject that coach on the spot!

There is no place in youth sports for an adult to tell his player to purposely throw at/run over or any one of a number of other things that could hurt another player. I've had to do it a couple of times, mostly with a coach telling his player to run over a defensive player if he doesn't get out of the way. Nip it in th bud!

[Mudisfun]

Let us start with the original statement of 13U... Rule set is irrelevant.

TIME!

Me: "Coach - did I just correctly hear you that you are instructing this player to purposely throw at and possibly injure another player?"

This question is going to be loud so that everyone within earshot will know and understand what is happening here...

Coach: whatever crap he may say

Here he has this one moment opportunity to correct his statement and readjust his position on instructing one child to assault another child. Any response other than an immediate retraction and re-education of his F2  is an auto EJ in my game of the coach. I will make for certain it is loud and there is zero ambiguity as to why this person is leaving the game. If the person entrusted with the development of 12/13 year old kids is not mature enough to figure this out on his own I will do the figuring for him.

I have a 12 year old player at the moment... I can tell you if a coach in my league did this he would NEVER coach again for us.

 

[lawump]

In the OP we're dealing with children.  You (the umpire) need to call time and get this addressed immediately.  Can you imagine the lawsuit if the coach says that, you do nothing after he says it, F2 then drills the batter and the batter has a serious injury?  You'll be dealing with that play in the legal system for a couple of years.

Call time and loudly say "the batter is not required to vacate the batter's box or to move to allow your catcher to throw down to third.  And if I feel he (your catcher) drills this or any other batter intentionally you're both going to be ejected." 

If the coach argues at all, tell him he is wrong about the rules and then dump him if he continues.  When you write up the ejection report and it asks "reason for ejection" make sure you write, "general principles".  

Again, you are dealing with children.

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, lawump said:

In the OP we're dealing with children.  You (the umpire) need to call time and get this addressed immediately.  Can you imagine the lawsuit if the coach says that, you do nothing after he says it, F2 then drills the batter and the batter has a serious injury?  You'll be dealing with that play in the legal system for a couple of years.

Call time and loudly say "the batter is not required to vacate the batter's box or to move to allow your catcher to throw down to third.  And if I feel he (your catcher) drills this or any other batter intentionally you're both going to be ejected." 

If the coach argues at all, tell him he is wrong about the rules and then dump him if he continues.  When you write up the ejection report and it asks "reason for ejection" make sure you write, "general principles".  

Again, you are dealing with children.

General principles, or lack of any principles entirely.

[Cato the Younger]

19 hours ago, ricka56 said:

I suggest that you don't let this statement go unchallenged. The coach is ignorant of the rules and telling his F2 to risk injury to the batter by throwing at him. I'm having words with that coach. That coach will have to re-instruct his F2 not to throw at the batter or else he's going to the parking lot (even if it is a scrimmage). I'd also put F2 on notice that if he follows the coaches bad advice, he doesn't get to play anymore. 

I 100% agree with this post. I've told the batter that if they stand perfectly still there doing the right thing and by moving they are actually putting themselves potentially in harm's way for interference.

[Cato the Younger]

19 hours ago, ricka56 said:

No BI, but WTF is it ? F2 basically, intentionally punched the batter in the stomach with the ball. UC/EJ ? 

 I also 100% agree with this and wouldn't hesitate to toss the catcher out of the game. Also his coach when he comes flying out of the dugout to defend him with any nonsense about batters interference.

[Umpirechick1]

Good advice - thanks everyone!  While I'd like to say I don't think this will happen again, I'm sadly confident that it will.

 

[Forest Ump]

I was going to pipe in when I started reading the OP but the last eight posters starting with Rolando nailed it.