Skip to main content

13 replies

Baseball dodges a close one - court case

coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531604

Before I look bad and people think I advocate throwing at batters - I do not support high school age kids throwing at batters. Not even sure if I support it at any level because you are putting runners on base plus you are asking a pitcher to do something that is not normal.

I think this ruling is good for the overall future of baseball. I couldn't imagine how congested our court system would become if this became a precedence to allow others to sue. If you think of all levels of baseball and the number of players hit by pitches in the course of a summer - how many court cases would there be?????

While I can't really disagree with the justice who dissented I don't think she really understands the long term ramifications of allowing this. A supreme court justice needs to be able to look ahead to see how a ruling / opinion will affect society. Lower level judges need to look at the smaller window of the present.

Also, think about this - if a pitcher did hit a batter and the batter felt it was intentional what then? Do you stop the game and arrest the pitcher? Does the umpire now have to toss the pitcher?

Just on the high school level it's hard to find good umps - the vast majority are good people who try their absolute best - but why burden them with making judgements like this.

Good call by California Supreme Court.

Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude. Thomas Jefferson

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

j2h6j2h6100+ posts
I've never condoned throwing at one's head but I do believe in sending messages sometimes when appropriate. If you've been a part of this game long enough you understand. Every one I'm sure will have varying opinions on this issue but for me there is a vast difference between sending a message and head hunting!
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
Good point j2h6 there is a difference between throwing at and throwing near. I'm just saying that to prosecute because someone got hit - even if it's intentional - is going to be a legal nightmare.

Our courts are already crowded with ridiculuos lawsuits and we don't need to congest it any further.

Even if a pitcher throws directly at a batter on purpose and you can legally define it as battery. How do you still prove intent? With the majorty of hit batsmen being accidents it's virtually impossible to prove intent.
D Doughnutman1,000+ posts
Pretty soon there won't be any more coaches. My wife is being sued as a cheer coach because somebody fell. No serious injuries, just bruises. But now we have a lawsuit to deal with and we hope the school and the teachers union can deal with them. But my wife is also named so we may have to deal with it peresonally. Definately not worth $1300 and a couple of hundred hours of work. Not to mention dealing with drama queens and their kids for 6 months. If we lose, say goodbye to extra currilcular activities in the state of Arizona. Frown
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
Doughnutman the sad this is you are right and my heart goes out to your wife for having to go through that. It's sad that our society has taken the view of the court systems as a get rich quick scheme. That is the sole reason why your wife and school is getting sued.

TRhit I think what you posted is the whole point of my bringing this case to everyone's attention - in the game of baseball it's virtually impossible to prove intent.

MLB has a basic no tolerance policy towards hit batters intentionally and those are the best umps in the world who are not sure.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
The umpire has control of the game, if he feels it's head hunting you are out of the game, that's how you stop it.

I have to admit, my son went head hunting this year (he never hit the batter). The ball actually was intentionally placed behind the batters upper back, high and away. It was quite apparent that it was intentional. The game before, that batter he went after made some very off color remarks and gestures towards our dugout. There were complaints towards that player that night, evwen fans witnessed it, but being as it was at the end of the game, there was nothing anyone could do. Anyway, the other coach stopped the game, asked the umpire to have son removed and in private, the coach was more or less told the player kind of deserved it, however he just saw it as a wild pitch.
That evening there was an apology in the paper from the opposing teams coach regarding remarks from his player.

This is something that should never be taught to younger players but as the stakes get higher, it is a part of the game. There are certain underwritten rules in baseball, this being one of them.
Last edited by TPM
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by TPM:
The umpire has control of the game, if he feels it's head hunting you are out of the game, that's how you stop it.

I have to admit, my son went head hunting this year (he never hit the batter). The ball actually was intentionally placed behind the batters upper back, high and away. It was quite apparent that it was intentional. The game before, that batter he went after made some very off color remarks and gestures towards our dugout. There were complaints towards that player that night, evwen fans witnessed it, but being as it was at the end of the game, there was nothing anyone could do. Anyway, the other coach stopped the game, asked the umpire to have son removed and in private, the coach was more or less told the player kind of deserved it, however he just saw it as a wild pitch.
That evening there was an apology in the paper from the opposing teams coach regarding remarks from his player.

This is something that should never be taught to younger players but as the stakes get higher, it is a part of the game. There are certain underwritten rules in baseball, this being one of them.


You are right that the ump has control of the game and for the most part they do a good job but what if your son did hit the batter and he was sued.

Would that be right?

If that had happened (and this is exactly what the newslink is talking about) your son hit the batter, he sued and won the case. How fair would that be to your son?

Your son (as well as all players) are taught - either overtly or behind the scenes - you take care of your team mates. If that means plunking him you plunk him. That is the culture of baseball.

Now let's say your son has runners on first and third - he is probably not going to hit this guy on purpose because it would hurt the team - but he does hit him on accident. Now the batter sues and wins. Is that fair?

Determining intent of getting hit by a pitch is pretty hard to do. The rules in place are good enough but they are difficult to enforce as is.
M MTS100+ posts
During high school summer ball one overpaid opposing coach and team were calling out pitch location. My son was given the appropriate sign and threw inside, so the batter bailed. Because the batter was over the plate the blue called it a strike. They stopped calling out pitch location.

More recently his team was leading by a lot. After the infield made 4 errors (our school was trying a couple of freshman) the opposing team started heckling and whooping it up at the infielders for their miscues. My son then threw the first pitch at the next batter over his head and then struck the kid out on three pitches to end the game.
Last edited by MTS
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Caoch,
Son went head hunting, there's a difference in intentionally hitting a batter, I agree. And TR is right, pitchers have an advantage, who is to say it is intentional? And you do not want to give free passes. The ruling was fair and IMO the consideration was ridiculous.

After Cameron Maybin hit one off of the Rocket, he got beamed in the hands, I felt that was intentional, I am not so sure that is proper, but it's done.
Last edited by TPM
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
quote:
The ruling was fair and IMO the consideration was ridiculous.


Not sure if I understand what you are saying with this.

I don't think I am getting my point across. I'm saying this stuff should be left on the field because it does police itself - right or wrong doesn't matter - you do something stupid you are going to get it next time up.

My point is this stuff should not be settled in a court of law. That is opening up a can of worms that will just get ugly and burdonsome. Doughnutman is right about what his wife is going through - if enough people sue over the silliest things then our amateur sports are done and by effect our professional sports are done.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×