Intentionally throwing at a base runner

[EdLovrich]

You know that he presumed to know the intent of the catcher. Yes it was based on what he saw, but it is still a presumption.

Now who is the mind reader? All I know is what he saw, the ball was thrown in a manner that was not catchable by the fielder, intent has no bearing on this call. On rules where intent IS required, intentionally interfering with a possible double play, intentionally hitting a batter, those are the tough calls umpires get paid to make. So, I guess by definition you are right, we are in the business of mind reading from the get-go. Does that mean you hate us right from the start?

 

[texasheat]

Now who is the mind reader? All I know is what he saw, the ball was thrown in a manner that was not catchable by the fielder, intent has no bearing on this call. On rules where intent IS required, intentionally interfering with a possible double play, intentionally hitting a batter, those are the tough calls umpires get paid to make. So, I guess by definition you are right, we are in the business of mind reading from the get-go. Does that mean you hate us right from the start?

So when the catcher says the ball slipped and the ump said he didn't see it that way and his JUDGEMENT will stand, he is in fact judging intent. AKA reading the mind of the catcher and determining that her throw was intentionally done to hit the runner. So intent was involved in his decision making, according to his own words.

And I'll ask you the same question that I asked comp. Just because a ball is thrown towards the ground, why does that make it a non-quality throw. is there automatic assumption that the 1b is unable to field bouncers? For rule book purposes?

And yes of course I'm right there are numerous situations that require the ump to read a player's mind. And I hate IT. Not the umps. I hate the fact that they get into the mind reading business. Sue me for not liking that but please don't put words in my mouth by saying I hate umps. Not the case at all. Thanks.

 

[EdLovrich]

So when the catcher says the ball slipped and the ump said he didn't see it that way and his JUDGEMENT will stand, he is in fact judging intent.

No, the umpires judgment was that the ball was not catchable by the fielder, regardless of the intent of the catcher. Intent has NO BEARING on this call.

As for calls where intent IS part of the call, would you have all of these calls removed? When a player reaches up and knocks a thrown ball down, breaking up a double play, is it apparent that was the players intent? If a batter had previously showboated rounding the bases and gets plugged her next at-bat by a pitcher who has had no problems with control previously, would you have us ONLY put that batter on base?

Are there times we get it wrong? Yes, there are, but MOST of the time we are pretty aware of what is going on. As I said in another thread, most umpires were players and or coaches at some point in their lives, we have been there and done that.

 

[Bullseye]

No, the umpires judgment was that the ball was not catchable by the fielder, regardless of the intent of the catcher. Intent has NO BEARING on this call.

As for calls where intent IS part of the call, would you have all of these calls removed? When a player reaches up and knocks a thrown ball down, breaking up a double play, is it apparent that was the players intent? If a batter had previously showboated rounding the bases and gets plugged her next at-bat by a pitcher who has had no problems with control previously, would you have us ONLY put that batter on base?

Are there times we get it wrong? Yes, there are, but MOST of the time we are pretty aware of what is going on. As I said in another thread, most umpires were players and or coaches at some point in their lives, we have been there and done that.

You come across as an arrogant person who has taken the job as an Umpire.
Not certain what blind your judgement more. The rule book gets applied using the opinion of the umpire. Not the opinion applys when the rules get applied.

 

[texasheat]

No, the umpires judgment was that the ball was not catchable by the fielder, regardless of the intent of the catcher. Intent has NO BEARING on this call.

You are just flat wrong.


This is impossible. Carry on Ed. Without me.

 

[texasheat]

You come across as an arrogant person who has taken the job as an Umpire.
Not certain what blind your judgement more. The rule book gets applied using the opinion of the umpire. Not the opinion applys when the rules get applied.

Yeah Ed is one of those umpires that has no authority in real life but craves it so he uses umpiring as a way to satisfy that craving.

 

[Bullseye]

Yeah Ed is one of those umpires that has no authority in real life but craves it so he uses umpiring as a way to satisfy that craving.

Yeah just figured the same in the thread they posted whats a perfect umpire. Will give it a couple more rounds befor heading to the fwy.

 

[wheresmycar]

As long as the throw was online with the 1B, then it is "catchable". 1b catches many 1 hoppers, so being low, or in the dirt does not make it "uncatchable".

Funny, I just saw this happen last night... I think it was Auburn vs Kennesaw State, Auburn batter tips a ball which dies in front of home plate, KSU catcher fields ball and drills batter who is clearly inside the base path in the back. Batter out.

 

[texasheat]

As long as the throw was online with the 1B, then it is "catchable". 1b catches many 1 hoppers, so being low, or in the dirt does not make it "uncatchable".

I asked about this earlier in the thread and haven't rec'd a response. Why would they automatically assume a ball thrown low won't be caught by the first basemen?

 

[SpringsFD158]

So are you saying that if the runner is not in the running lane, the catcher has to move to get a better angle for a throw to first?

I was a catcher for many years. I would field the bunt, take the step, if necessary, to create inside throwing lane. Then throw to whichever fielder is covering . If the runner is inside baseline more than 1/2 way to base and either gets hit or interferes with fielder inside baseline on a catchable throw they are out. You cant assume that fielder cant catch ball in dirt.