Batter beaned twice by catcher

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours 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. 

I think we all realize that different levels require different approaches.  Treating a pre-pubescent kid as you would an adult in college should go without saying.

I will point out that you are incorrect.  Every rule set allows for us to remove a pitcher for intentionally throwing at a batter.  Willful negligence is on par with intent.  A catcher who is routinely hitting the batter is also, at minimum, committing acts not within the spirit of fair play, and at the extreme, willfully attempting to hurt somebody.

To clarify my previous comment, I am not saying arbitrarily remove the kid without a word.  I think saying something on the second one is the appropriate action.  Making it known that if he continues to do this he will be removed is also appropriate.  If he gets to a third one and you haven't said anything (even something as simple as "Dude, be careful"), you need to work on your game management.  This isn't coaching a player.  This is keeping control of your game.

I also think letting the coach know that his attitude to your direction also puts him on that list is an appropriate action.  If he doesn't like that, then things aren't going to be better by keeping him around.

[JSam21]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I think we all realize that different levels require different approaches.  Treating a pre-pubescent kid as you would an adult in college should go without saying.

I will point out that you are incorrect.  Every rule set allows for us to remove a pitcher for intentionally throwing at a batter.  Willful negligence is on par with intent.  A catcher who is routinely hitting the batter is also, at minimum, committing acts not within the spirit of fair play, and at the extreme, willfully attempting to hurt somebody.

To clarify my previous comment, I am not saying arbitrarily remove the kid without a word.  I think saying something on the second one is the appropriate action.  Making it known that if he continues to do this he will be removed is also appropriate.  If he gets to a third one and you haven't said anything (even something as simple as "Dude, be careful"), you need to work on your game management.  This isn't coaching a player.  This is keeping control of your game.

I also think letting the coach know that his attitude to your direction also puts him on that list is an appropriate action.  If he doesn't like that, then things aren't going to be better by keeping him around.

There was zero intent ever insinuated here. Of course there are remedies for intentional actions. 

All I have said is there is no rule set that would allow us to eject for an unintentional action that was listed in the OP. 

[MadMax]

On 9/24/2024 at 1:33 PM, BigBlue4u said:

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

On 9/24/2024 at 1:45 PM, JSam21 said:

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.

As JSam21 alludes to, those rules aren’t tools, insomuch that a fire extinguisher isn’t a tool. Sure, it’s on a hook in the machine shop, but you should only be using it as a last resort. If you’re grabbing it to pound nails, or fill holes, or spray pests (hornets, mice) in the shop, then you don’t have the proper tools – or know their uses – in your shop. 

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, JSam21 said:

There was zero intent ever insinuated here. Of course there are remedies for intentional actions. 

All I have said is there is no rule set that would allow us to eject for an unintentional action that was listed in the OP. 

You and I read it differently.  I read it that there was intent.  If not intent, minimally a "reckless indifference" that has the potential to end in an injury or in lighting a powder keg.  In my view, reckless indifference to that extent rises to the level of intent.  It's not the same, but it gets us to the same place.

Judging intent is difficult.  Foreseeing the potential for the trainwreck is not.

[beerguy55]

On 9/25/2024 at 9:59 AM, JSam21 said:

There was zero intent ever insinuated here. Of course there are remedies for intentional actions. 

All I have said is there is no rule set that would allow us to eject for an unintentional action that was listed in the OP. 

Malice doesn't require intent...it can also entail indifference, apathy, negligence, neglect or simply disregard.

ie. the catcher isn't trying to hurt the batter, he just doesn't give a SH*# whether he hurts the batter or not.  And the coach's reaction follows the same disregard.

Throwing a bat would follow the same vein.  So would just randomly swinging the bat without any care of who is around you.