Likely on purpose. Catcher hits batter in head.

[_MIA_]

Do you have any idea how dangerous this type of thinking really is? I've coached 39 years and have never seen anyone coach this. You bet your a.. if this happened to one of my players, me and the other coach will go at it. You talk about rules. There are other issues including the idea of sportsmanship that we, as coaches are supposed to teach. BTW, you mention that the girl has a helmet on. How do you know if that child has ever had a concussion? How do you know if they have any other health concerns? If your catcher hits that kid in the throat then they could kill that child.

While I wouldn't have wanted to see it happen, had some catcher done that to my dd, I am betting that they would either be body slammed or knocked out by her. She was never a little child. What would you say when something like that happened?

Would you coach your fielders to knock the heck out of a player with a tag play even when they are safe and the play on them is late? That might be within the rules but shows a lack of class and sportsmanship. There are so many instances where we can say we did something within the rules but violate the spirit of the game. Members here might remember what happened when a coach "playing within the rules" tried to have his players take out my dd. Bad idea. (Ken Krause (Admin) and I shared pm on what happened there. It was not pretty.)

(Note, it is not my intent to sound like a BA. However, there are members on this site who know me and are from my area. I am sure that they have heard about I really am when it comes to protecting my kids.)

Darrell Butler

I think you responded to the wrong post..

 

[Cannonball]

I think you responded to the wrong post..

Thanks. You're right. I edited.

 

[The Man In Blue]

For sure, you could call a ball on the pitcher for throwing to a base that didn't have a runner at it.

 

[The Man In Blue]

is intent fairly difficult to come up with IF the running is going to 3rd? let's assume the batter isn't WAY out of the line of fire......even if the catcher has done it before, i would assume intent is a difficult call to make?

DD2 has been a catcher since she was 8.....she turns 17 today.......i think i have seen her actually hit a batter maybe twice.......and the more obvious interference calls have been more with the batter entangled with her while attempting the throw......and that i've seen maybe 2 or 3 times

Intent is not part of the malicious contact rule. Malicious contact is defined in the rules as excessive force.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Y

Small town, low population county....word gets out fast.
Bet the ump group is small, share game info, and other communication. Was there an ump assigned to multiple games McCamey High played.....probably?

Look how fast this story has hit the internet...on every softball moms FB and is an auto fill at Google in one day.

I know umpires are in short supply, but not that short. I've been back in Illinois for almost a year now and I have worked just as many games with people I have never met as I have with "the regulars" that I know.

That said, much of this hinges on how umpires are assigned and what support the associations in the area provide.

From what I understand, it was a state post-season series. I can't speak for Texas, but from associating with umpires in many different states, it isn't uncommon in many places to get a post-season assignment 2 hours or more from your home territory so you are getting teams you haven't had all year.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I won't take exception with as much of that as you might think, @bmwbykrydr , but there is a whole lot of "wrong" in your post.

I will agree with you to an extent about the batters backing out. Coaches need to start emphasizing staying in the box and we umpires need to get more strict on enforcing the "keep one foot in" rule. Regardless, that has no impact on the play we are discussing.

Section 6-R - The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box. (this implies with both feet) Runners return to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch.

Incorrect. There is no implication. I'm not sure which rule set you are using, but this game was played under NFHS.

NFHS 7-4-4 is the equivalent for what you are citing. While it mentions stepping out, it does not require the batter to step out with both feet or even one foot. ANY MOVEMENT can be considered interference. (As noted earlier, I am not a fan of the interpretations of this rule.)

You will also note that interference does not occur when a catcher is "throwing the ball" but rather "the catcher's attempt to play on a runner." That is important ... hang on to it for later.

Yes, the catcher has been taught to do this because the rule allows it, it is legal. The rule does not require proof that the catcher is trying to throw to a base, it does not require that there be a play at that base or any base as long as there is a runner on base. The whole point of this rule is to prevent the offense from interfering with the catcher and her ability to make a play. We all know if this rule wasn't in place that you'd have batter after batter jumping up and down waving their bat in front of a catcher trying to knock down a throw to 3B.

I'm going to jump over the first sentence for a moment ... you know that piece I said to hang on to? Break it out now. The rule DOES require a play to be in process. I still argue the interference call in the NCAA game a few weeks ago should NOT have been called because the catcher's throw was NOT a play on the runner, but a designed play to allow the middle infielder to play on the lead runner.

Now, back to that first sentence ... what specifically are you stating is legal and under which rule?

We have established there was no potential play, so there can be no interference. With no play, the catcher can only be throwing that direction for one reason: to hit the batter.

Which brings us to malicious contact. Let's talk about those rules.

NFHS 2-35


I would consider intentionally throwing the ball at the face of an opponent when there is no play to be made as excessive and forceful.

NFHS 3-6-18


So ... you can't do that. By rule.

NFHS 3-6-18 Penalty


In my judgement, I have that as pretty serious. Ejection on the catcher.

Since the penalty above also mentions Article 19, let's look at that one also.




By that definition, we could make a case the catcher was trying to start a fight. That may be a bridge a bit far, but it fits in that the catcher attempted to strike the batter with the ball. We wouldn't allow the batter to turn around and whack the catcher with the bat if the catcher is set up too close, so why on earth would we allow a catcher to throw a ball at a batter's face when there is no play?

I do teach my catcher's to watch for this situation and they are taught not to throw around the batter IF THE BATTER IS ACTUALLY IN THE PATH OF THE THROW. This is my own addendum to the rule which does not make this distinction, I do. You only need to miss the batter by an inch, make the throw, make the play. If it hits her helmet, that's why she's wearing one.

Let me offer you some words of caution, coach. CONTACT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR INTERFERENCE. If you are coaching that, you need to seriously reconsider your position as a coach in youth sports.

You don't get to make up your own addendums.

Encouraging contact falls under NFHS 3-6-13, unsporting acts:




I understand what you are saying about the batter stepping out, but trying to use that as some sort of justification for a player to callously inflict bodily harm is not some genius plan.

Now I will speak for myself, not the rulebook ... If I hear "run her over," "just hit her," "make her move," or anything to that effect, I am issuing team warnings. If you want to argue that, you can enjoy the rest of the day without having to worry about it. If your player does it, you can both grab an early ice cream cone. Rules in youth sports are designed for the safety of the participants, not the preservation of your precious ego or your win-loss record.

 

[Lemond]

@The Man In Blue - drop mic, exit stage, close thread.

 

[Cannonball]

I won't take exception with as much of that as you might think, @bmwbykrydr , but there is a whole lot of "wrong" in your post.

I will agree with you to an extent about the batters backing out. Coaches need to start emphasizing staying in the box and we umpires need to get more strict on enforcing the "keep one foot in" rule. Regardless, that has no impact on the play we are discussing.



Incorrect. There is no implication. I'm not sure which rule set you are using, but this game was played under NFHS.

NFHS 7-4-4 is the equivalent for what you are citing. While it mentions stepping out, it does not require the batter to step out with both feet or even one foot. ANY MOVEMENT can be considered interference. (As noted earlier, I am not a fan of the interpretations of this rule.)

You will also note that interference does not occur when a catcher is "throwing the ball" but rather "the catcher's attempt to play on a runner." That is important ... hang on to it for later.

View attachment 27904


I'm going to jump over the first sentence for a moment ... you know that piece I said to hang on to? Break it out now. The rule DOES require a play to be in process. I still argue the interference call in the NCAA game a few weeks ago should NOT have been called because the catcher's throw was NOT a play on the runner, but a designed play to allow the middle infielder to play on the lead runner.

Now, back to that first sentence ... what specifically are you stating is legal and under which rule?

We have established there was no potential play, so there can be no interference. With no play, the catcher can only be throwing that direction for one reason: to hit the batter.

Which brings us to malicious contact. Let's talk about those rules.

NFHS 2-35
View attachment 27905

I would consider intentionally throwing the ball at the face of an opponent when there is no play to be made as excessive and forceful.

NFHS 3-6-18
View attachment 27906

So ... you can't do that. By rule.

NFHS 3-6-18 Penalty
View attachment 27907

In my judgement, I have that as pretty serious. Ejection on the catcher.

Since the penalty above also mentions Article 19, let's look at that one also.

View attachment 27909
View attachment 27910

By that definition, we could make a case the catcher was trying to start a fight. That may be a bridge a bit far, but it fits in that the catcher attempted to strike the batter with the ball. We wouldn't allow the batter to turn around and whack the catcher with the bat if the catcher is set up too close, so why on earth would we allow a catcher to throw a ball at a batter's face when there is no play?



Let me offer you some words of caution, coach. CONTACT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR INTERFERENCE. If you are coaching that, you need to seriously reconsider your position as a coach in youth sports.

You don't get to make up your own addendums.

Encouraging contact falls under NFHS 3-6-13, unsporting acts:

View attachment 27908


I understand what you are saying about the batter stepping out, but trying to use that as some sort of justification for a player to callously inflict bodily harm is not some genius plan.

Now I will speak for myself, not the rulebook ... If I hear "run her over," "just hit her," "make her move," or anything to that effect, I am issuing team warnings. If you want to argue that, you can enjoy the rest of the day without having to worry about it. If your player does it, you can both grab an early ice cream cone. Rules in youth sports are designed for the safety of the participants, not the preservation of your precious ego or your win-loss record.

Nomination for "BEST POST OF THE YEAR!"

 

[Agcy]

I've just got to weigh in on this and I know I'm going to get flamed for it by those that don't read the whole post. This is different from last fall's hot topic when a base runner ran from second to home on a bunt, missing third by several feet. Running the bases out of order is expressly prohibited by rule, therefor completely illegal. I don't know which sanctioning body these teams are playing under, but I think pretty much all of them have a similar rule here.

Section 6-R - The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box. (this implies with both feet) Runners return to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch.

Yes, the catcher has been taught to do this because the rule allows it, it is legal. The rule does not require proof that the catcher is trying to throw to a base, it does not require that there be a play at that base or any base as long as there is a runner on base. The whole point of this rule is to prevent the offense from interfering with the catcher and her ability to make a play. We all know if this rule wasn't in place that you'd have batter after batter jumping up and down waving their bat in front of a catcher trying to knock down a throw to 3B.

The offense isn't helpless here. WHY IS THIS BATTER LEAVING THE BOX WITH RUNNER'S TO PROTECT!! If she is not swinging at a ball, that is her only other job, PROTECT HER RUNNERS. She should not be going anywhere until the ball is in the circle. That is how the offense can legally interfere with the defense, by staying in the box and making the catcher throw around the batter. If the catcher hits the batter in this situation the ball is live and runners can advance. If the umpire feels the contact was intentional or malicious, now the umpire can eject the catcher.

I do teach my catcher's to watch for this situation and they are taught not to throw around the batter IF THE BATTER IS ACTUALLY IN THE PATH OF THE THROW. This is my own addendum to the rule which does not make this distinction, I do. You only need to miss the batter by an inch, make the throw, make the play. If it hits her helmet, that's why she's wearing one.

I'll refer to the two batter's separately. One batter has a light helmet, the other she has a dark helmet.

Dark helmet batter: Bases are loaded. If you watch closely, the batter IS NOT OUT OF THE BOX when the catcher throws the ball. Her right foot can be seen between the ump and catcher as she peels her toes up. She is stepping out of the box, I DON'T KNOW WHY, but she is not out of the box. I think the catcher should have been ejected on that play because the batter is in the box.

Light helmet batter: Runner at 2B. Batter is slightly more out of the box. She has picked her left foot up and has left the box. By rule, this is legal because of that. The umpires signals dead ball so he feels she was out of the box as well. This is where my personal addendum comes into play. The catcher knows the runner is not advancing, there is no one to throw to at the bag, don't throw. Also, there is no need to throw the ball that hard. The catcher nearly takes the batters helmet off. A simple wrist flick would generate the same outcome. There is no need to throw at the batters face. She has a face guard but throw a little low and you've hit her throat.

In the end, I do not fault the catcher with the light helmet batter, I do with the dark helmet batter. I find more fault with the coach that didn't put limits on the catcher's decision making, even though she doesn't have to, but that's just me. There is a lot of fault on the offense for leaving the box at all.

So much wrong here. but maybe one simple question: Do you teach your catchers how to throw around the batter?

 

[RADcatcher]

I won't take exception with as much of that as you might think, @bmwbykrydr , but there is a whole lot of "wrong" in your post.

I will agree with you to an extent about the batters backing out. Coaches need to start emphasizing staying in the box and we umpires need to get more strict on enforcing the "keep one foot in" rule. Regardless, that has no impact on the play we are discussing.



Incorrect. There is no implication. I'm not sure which rule set you are using, but this game was played under NFHS.

NFHS 7-4-4 is the equivalent for what you are citing. While it mentions stepping out, it does not require the batter to step out with both feet or even one foot. ANY MOVEMENT can be considered interference. (As noted earlier, I am not a fan of the interpretations of this rule.)

You will also note that interference does not occur when a catcher is "throwing the ball" but rather "the catcher's attempt to play on a runner." That is important ... hang on to it for later.

View attachment 27904


I'm going to jump over the first sentence for a moment ... you know that piece I said to hang on to? Break it out now. The rule DOES require a play to be in process. I still argue the interference call in the NCAA game a few weeks ago should NOT have been called because the catcher's throw was NOT a play on the runner, but a designed play to allow the middle infielder to play on the lead runner.

Now, back to that first sentence ... what specifically are you stating is legal and under which rule?

We have established there was no potential play, so there can be no interference. With no play, the catcher can only be throwing that direction for one reason: to hit the batter.

Which brings us to malicious contact. Let's talk about those rules.

NFHS 2-35
View attachment 27905

I would consider intentionally throwing the ball at the face of an opponent when there is no play to be made as excessive and forceful.

NFHS 3-6-18
View attachment 27906

So ... you can't do that. By rule.

NFHS 3-6-18 Penalty
View attachment 27907

In my judgement, I have that as pretty serious. Ejection on the catcher.

Since the penalty above also mentions Article 19, let's look at that one also.

View attachment 27909
View attachment 27910

By that definition, we could make a case the catcher was trying to start a fight. That may be a bridge a bit far, but it fits in that the catcher attempted to strike the batter with the ball. We wouldn't allow the batter to turn around and whack the catcher with the bat if the catcher is set up too close, so why on earth would we allow a catcher to throw a ball at a batter's face when there is no play?



Let me offer you some words of caution, coach. CONTACT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR INTERFERENCE. If you are coaching that, you need to seriously reconsider your position as a coach in youth sports.

You don't get to make up your own addendums.

Encouraging contact falls under NFHS 3-6-13, unsporting acts:

View attachment 27908


I understand what you are saying about the batter stepping out, but trying to use that as some sort of justification for a player to callously inflict bodily harm is not some genius plan.

Now I will speak for myself, not the rulebook ... If I hear "run her over," "just hit her," "make her move," or anything to that effect, I am issuing team warnings. If you want to argue that, you can enjoy the rest of the day without having to worry about it. If your player does it, you can both grab an early ice cream cone. Rules in youth sports are designed for the safety of the participants, not the preservation of your precious ego or your win-loss record.

While I have no interest in being an Umpire again,
if @The Man In Blue were hosting an umpiring talk show I would be a fan!
Respect to you!