Batter beaned twice by catcher

[Jay R.]

I've been umpiring on and off for a dozen years and had a new situation come up today in a U10 fall rec game (PONY Mustang with local mods, but I don't think it matters other than runners cannot advance home except on a batted ball or forced home on a walk).

By the bottom of the second inning, the visitors' catcher has demonstrated that he's both skilled and alternately bored and frustrated. With no one on or runners frozen, he's catching from one knee and throwing the ball back without standing up. With two outs and runners on second and third, a left-handed batter comes up, the first two pitches are strikes, and both return throws are lazy sidearms and hit the batter while he was standing in the box. Clearly not malicious, but both balls hit the batter in the helmet after glancing off either the bat and or shoulder. (No one attempted to advance, given the local rules on stealing home.)

After the second one, I called time and asked the catcher to "Please stand up and throw the ball back to the pitcher without hitting the batter." The next pitch was strike three, catcher rolled it back to the mound and walked away.

The visiting manager then came out to tell me that the batter needed to get out of the way and that his catcher could throw wherever he wanted. I was flabbergasted---the batter was well within the box, in a legal batting stance, and none of his movements in any way interfered with an attempt to retire a runner. I was polite but the idea was so foreign to me. I explained that there was no reason for the catcher to even come close to hitting the batter and that, especially at that age level, I'm going to protect the batter from lazy play that borders on dangerous. He mumbled a bunch of stuff that didn't make sense, then walked away. I still can't understand what he might have been getting at.

Am I missing anything? Should I have done anything differently? (To be honest I was tempted to eject the coach for arguing that the batter should have to dodge returns from the catcher, but I don't think that I should've.) Has anyone seen something like this before, and how did/would you handle it?

[The Man in Blue]

Other than making the mistake of having functioning brain cells and actually applying logic and common sense?

I can't say an ejection was in order, but darn it sure feels like there was one itching to happen.  

14 minutes ago, Jay R. said:

After the second one, I called time and asked the catcher to "Please stand up and throw the ball back to the pitcher without hitting the batter." The next pitch was strike three, catcher rolled it back to the mound and walked away.

The visiting manager then came out to tell me that the batter needed to get out of the way and that his catcher could throw wherever he wanted.

I would hope I would have just shut it down there, "Coach, we aren't doing that."  However, I probably would have gotten that same shell shocked paralysis at the impressive level of stupidity on display.

I would be more prone to eject the catcher if he did it again, and then send the coach packing with him, rather than eject for muttering insane rantings so stupid they would make a candidate in a major election blush.

[Jay R.]

26 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I would be more prone to eject the catcher if he did it again, and then send the coach packing with him

I admit I was thinking about that even before the coach came out---if the third pitch had been a borderline ball that the catcher caught and threw back without moving and it happened again, would I have tossed him?

I think the standard for ejecting kids has to be fairly high and without obvious malice I'm not sure that I would have, though it is of a piece, for example, with the LL standard for ejecting someone who cannot hold onto a bat safely. I might have told the coach that he can either sub the catcher or both he and the kid are done (akin to LL's option for having a coach remove the kid before the ejection becomes necessary). 

In any case the catcher pitched innings 3-4 and then played short. 

[SeeingEyeDog]

@Jay R., my only change would have been to minimize your verbiage to the catcher...

I would have said, "Please do not hit the batters with your throws. If you do it again, you may be ejected..." The key word being may. You are allowing for a third instance that may end up being the result of the batter's actions or inactions. If you say, "...you will be ejected." then you are limiting your choices if it happens again.

As described, I don't have malicious intent and you were correct in addressing it and shutting it down. In the amateur game, safety must be at the basis of everything we do out there. If someone is making it unsafe on the field whether deliberately or not, the umpires have an obligation to address it. Amateur players are predictable in that once they have been informed that their actions are close to an ejection, they typically (not always) self-regulate once informed by the authority.

Just curious...did the catcher show any surprise at what happened and or concern for the batter? If not, that would be a bit of a flag. I've seen this happen a few times and the catchers have always apologized and shown concern for their actions...

~Dawg

[Jay R.]

7 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

did the catcher show any surprise at what happened and or concern for the batter?

No, but neither did the batter react much. 

[JSam21]

The catcher can throw it back however they want to. The batter doesn't need to move. Ejecting someone for perceived "laziness" might be over kill. 

Unintended consequences of rules are fun. 

[MarsOmega]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

The catcher can throw it back however they want to. The batter doesn't need to move. Ejecting someone for perceived "laziness" might be over kill. 

Unintended consequences of rules are fun. 

You say the catcher can throw it back however he wants to. Does this mean you think that the catcher can intentionally throw the ball into the batter as hard as he wants? The issue here isn't that the rules require him to throw the back a certain way, but they do require him to act in control, in a safe manner, and be sportsmanlike. I personally wouldn't allow this to happen as the batter could get injured due to the catcher's unsafe conduct. 

[SeeingEyeDog]

1 hour ago, MarsOmega said:

You say the catcher can throw it back however he wants to. Does this mean you think that the catcher can intentionally throw the ball into the batter as hard as he wants? The issue here isn't that the rules require him to throw the back a certain way, but they do require him to act in control, in a safe manner, and be sportsmanlike. I personally wouldn't allow this to happen as the batter could get injured due to the catcher's unsafe conduct. 

[...is popping popcorn for this]

~Dawg

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, MarsOmega said:

You say the catcher can throw it back however he wants to. Does this mean you think that the catcher can intentionally throw the ball into the batter as hard as he wants? The issue here isn't that the rules require him to throw the back a certain way, but they do require him to act in control, in a safe manner, and be sportsmanlike. I personally wouldn't allow this to happen as the batter could get injured due to the catcher's unsafe conduct. 

I didn't say that they could throw a ball into the batter as hard as they wanted to. That isn't what happened here. 

What I did say is the catcher can throw the ball back to the pitcher however they wanted to. We can't make them stand up to throw the ball back to the pitcher. 

The kid had lazy arm action and it hit the batter... so what? It is the unintended consequences of the rule this league made that doesn't allow runners to advance to home outside of walks and batted balls. 

This is a ridiculous straw man argument...

[JSam21]

14 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

[...is popping popcorn for this]

~Dawg

May I have a handful?

[Jay R.]

29 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

It is the unintended consequences of the rule this league made that doesn't allow runners to advance to home outside of walks and batted balls. 

Would you ignore it if say, in a high school game with the bases empty a catcher hit a batter with consecutive returns?

Asking honestly, not trying to stir the pot. 

3 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Ejecting someone for perceived "laziness" might be over kill. 

Tend to agree, though my concern for player safety had me wondering where I would draw the line.

[JSam21]

20 minutes ago, Jay R. said:

Would you ignore it if say, in a high school game with the bases empty a catcher hit a batter with consecutive returns?

Asking honestly, not trying to stir the pot. 

Tend to agree, though my concern for player safety had me wondering where I would draw the line.

I'm not saying we totally ignore it. The radar goes up for sure. If nothing has happened earlier in the game between the teams/players then it could just be the yips from the catcher. 

I will put this a different way to you. How many batters does a pitcher have to hit with a pitch before you remove them from the game?

[SeeingEyeDog]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

May I have a handful?

For you, sir? [...presents the full theatre sized, tube bag]

~Dawg

[Jay R.]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

I'm not saying we totally ignore it. The radar goes up for sure. If nothing has happened earlier in the game between the teams/players then it could just be the yips from the catcher. 

Absolutely. If there is an obvious mechanical issue (not looking, not standing up, throwing sidearm when there's a batter on your arm side, etc) should we not try to correct that mechanical issue to try to prevent things from escalating, especially in youth rec ball?

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

I will put this a different way to you. How many batters does a pitcher have to hit with a pitch before you remove them from the game?

Several youth leagues I've worked have rules on this, though this particular league does not. I think the local fastpitch softball league says two in an inning or three in a game. 

I think that if there were an analogous situation---a 9-y-o pitcher who's been dealing for two innings hits batters on consecutive pitches---I would make a mental note after two, after three ask the manager to go to the mound to have a conversation, and after four ask the manager to remove.

But I see way more hit batsmen overall than I do batters hit with return throws; I don't think a hit batsman or even back-to-back hit batsmen is as easily correctable as asking the catcher to avoid hitting the batter on the return.

[BigBlue4u]

16 hours ago, Jay R. said:

I've been umpiring on and off for a dozen years and had a new situation come up today in a U10 fall rec game (PONY Mustang with local mods, but I don't think it matters other than runners cannot advance home except on a batted ball or forced home on a walk).

By the bottom of the second inning, the visitors' catcher has demonstrated that he's both skilled and alternately bored and frustrated. With no one on or runners frozen, he's catching from one knee and throwing the ball back without standing up. With two outs and runners on second and third, a left-handed batter comes up, the first two pitches are strikes, and both return throws are lazy sidearms and hit the batter while he was standing in the box. Clearly not malicious, but both balls hit the batter in the helmet after glancing off either the bat and or shoulder. (No one attempted to advance, given the local rules on stealing home.)

After the second one, I called time and asked the catcher to "Please stand up and throw the ball back to the pitcher without hitting the batter." The next pitch was strike three, catcher rolled it back to the mound and walked away.

The visiting manager then came out to tell me that the batter needed to get out of the way and that his catcher could throw wherever he wanted. I was flabbergasted---the batter was well within the box, in a legal batting stance, and none of his movements in any way interfered with an attempt to retire a runner. I was polite but the idea was so foreign to me. I explained that there was no reason for the catcher to even come close to hitting the batter and that, especially at that age level, I'm going to protect the batter from lazy play that borders on dangerous. He mumbled a bunch of stuff that didn't make sense, then walked away. I still can't understand what he might have been getting at.

Am I missing anything? Should I have done anything differently? (To be honest I was tempted to eject the coach for arguing that the batter should have to dodge returns from the catcher, but I don't think that I should've.) Has anyone seen something like this before, and how did/would you handle it?

No need to get into a long discussion with the coach about this.  In a very calm tone of voice, this is what you tell him: "Coach, here's the deal.  What you are saying is incorrect.  What's is going to happen is that the next time your catcher hits the batter while throwing the ball back to the pitcher, he going to get ejected.  And, if you argue that, you are going with him." Bottom line:  If a coach is reasonable, you be reasonable.  If the coach acts as you described, he gets a very short leash.

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, Jay R. said:

Absolutely. If there is an obvious mechanical issue (not looking, not standing up, throwing sidearm when there's a batter on your arm side, etc) should we not try to correct that mechanical issue to try to prevent things from escalating, especially in youth rec ball?

Several youth leagues I've worked have rules on this, though this particular league does not. I think the local fastpitch softball league says two in an inning or three in a game. 

I think that if there were an analogous situation---a 9-y-o pitcher who's been dealing for two innings hits batters on consecutive pitches---I would make a mental note after two, after three ask the manager to go to the mound to have a conversation, and after four ask the manager to remove.

But I see way more hit batsmen overall than I do batters hit with return throws; I don't think a hit batsman or even back-to-back hit batsmen is as easily correctable as asking the catcher to avoid hitting the batter on the return.

I will readily admit, I don't work levels where coaching up kids as an umpire is looked upon in a good light. For youth baseball, sure, whatever floats your boat. But, if you aspire to advance levels, I wouldn't get into the habit of coaching the players. 

We don't have a place in coaching the players, just like the coaches don't have a place in teaching us mechanics.

As for the pitcher thing... sure house rules can apply. But none of the major 3 rule sets, OBR, NCAA, or NFHS, allow us to remove a pitcher for that. Just like they don't allow us to remove a catcher for the action described. 

[Jay R.]

@JSam21 That's fair, and that's the needle I'm trying to thread here given the age levels (and the overall temperature of this league; I've worked other youth leagues that emphasized the different roles of umpires and coaches). 

When discussing the high school hypothetical you said "the radar goes up for sure." What would it take to get you to say something? Three consecutive pitches? Four? Would you do any coaching or go straight to the ejection? Absent any malicious intent, do you let it go indefinitely?

[BigBlue4u]

24 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

I will readily admit, I don't work levels where coaching up kids as an umpire is looked upon in a good light. For youth baseball, sure, whatever floats your boat. But, if you aspire to advance levels, I wouldn't get into the habit of coaching the players. 

We don't have a place in coaching the players, just like the coaches don't have a place in teaching us mechanics.

As for the pitcher thing... sure house rules can apply. But none of the major 3 rule sets, OBR, NCAA, or NFHS, allow us to remove a pitcher for that. Just like they don't allow us to remove a catcher for the action described. 

8.01c; 3-6-b; 10-2-3g. It's called game control

[JSam21]

9 minutes ago, Jay R. said:

@JSam21 That's fair, and that's the needle I'm trying to thread here given the age levels (and the overall temperature of this league; I've worked other youth leagues that emphasized the different roles of umpires and coaches). 

When discussing the high school hypothetical you said "the radar goes up for sure." What would it take to get you to say something? Three consecutive pitches? Four? Would you do any coaching or go straight to the ejection? Absent any malicious intent, do you let it go indefinitely?

Just be aware of something that looks to be an intentional act and/or how the person who got hit reacts. If the temperature starts to go up in the room, issue warnings.

I've always been a hands off kind of umpire when it comes to "coaching the players". Now you can talk to the coach about it and let them deal with it. 

I will give you an example of the furthest extent that I go. I was at camp two weeks ago. I was working first base in the 3 umpire system with some 14U kids. There was a pitching change and R1's dugout was over on the 3rd base line. After a meeting with his coach on the 3rd base line, R1 comes trotting back over and cuts in front of the mound. "Hey bud, once you start getting into Varsity games and playing in college, someone might take your head off if you cut in front of the mound like that. Pitchers can be kind of crazy right? So you might want to start going behind the mound when you are coming back to the base after meeting with your coach."

[JSam21]

1 minute ago, BigBlue4u said:

8.01c; 3-6-b; 10-2-3g. It's called game control

God Ruling? Yeah... that won't fly. 

[BigBlue4u]

Just now, JSam21 said:

God Ruling? Yeah... that won't fly.

?????

[834k3r]

16 hours ago, Jay R. said:

I think the standard for ejecting kids has to be fairly high...

I disagree. I think to the contrary our (collectively, probably, but certainly mine personally) bar is too high for ejections. That's why kids and coaches alike get away with some of the crap they're trying now.

[JSam21]

4 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

?????

The two rule cites that you gave, OBR and NFHS respectively, are colloquially known as the God Rule. Since they allow "final decisions on points not covered by the rules". That is rarely used. This is not a situation where it would be used either. If you are using those to "control your game" then I would look hard at your game management skills. 

Nothing here is worthy of an ejection. 

[grayhawk]

You most certainly don't need to invoke the "God rule" in NCAA. It's a point specifically covered by the rules:

7-11 Exceptions

Note: A batter’s actions must be intentional for there to be interference during a catcher’s return throw to the pitcher. If it is unintentional and the return throw to the pitcher hits the batter or their bat while the batter is in the batter’s box, the ball remains live and in play. If the batter does nothing intentional and no runners are attempting to advance, and the catcher’s return throw to the pitcher hits the batter or their bat while the batter is legally out of the batter’s box, it is not interference. The ball is immediately dead and all runners return without penalty.

[Biscuit]

At the levels @JSam21 works, if it happens more than, realisticly, once, it's intentional. Those kinds of catchers don't just hit batters when making a rutine throw back to the catcher, and they certainly don't do it multiple times. If it were to happen because a catcher is incredibly... I don't know, lazy? Indifferent and not paying attention? The coach would probably address it. It's basically not a thing that you'd ever have to deal with at that level.

In the incredibly unlikely case of it actually happening multiple times at the collegiate level, my honest reaction would be "Dude, really?", letting him know not to be hitting batters, but I wouldn't tell him how to not hit batters. He knows how, and I'm not coaching.