Batter absolutely on top of the plate

I don't know why you would be against intentionally throwing inside.  The inside line is legally given to the hitter.  But that, in no way, should discourage a pitcher from throwing inside any more than if the hitter were standing as far away from the plate as possible.

Throwing inside is part of the game.  If a player is aggressive enough to stand on top of the plate to take part of what is the pitcher's, the pitcher has a right to be aggressive as well.  

Your boy needs to say something.  There is nothing wrong with respectfully pleading a case.  His pitcher needs the support.   If things are technically legal, then you have to work with the situation.  But, by all means, don't back down or give in.  If you give a kid three free bases, you've at least made him earn them.

A couple of strikes on the inside of the plate might help the batter change his stance a bit.  Nothing worse than getting beaned on the elbow only to have a strike called (of course, you do need a competent umpire to make this call).

As for the double steal in particular, you mention that was "on my son" - did your son make any attempt to throw either runner out?  If an attempt was made, it would have either been behind the batter (which having a right handed batter move towards the plate would benefit) or would be in front of the batter which should have resulted in contact on the plate itself.  Was it just that the catcher made no attempt and therefore no interference?  

You also mentioned stepping on the plate during a swing - my understanding is that this is an out (if during the pitch - not immediately after) and should have been recognized and called.  Not sure how this kid could be a very good hitter and end up stepping on the plate during a swing.

Again, the best way to deal with this is to throw strikes inside and have the catcher execute throws normally - even if that entails the catcher charging through a batter who ends up standing on the plate.  I have heard some different interpretations of what space the batter "owns" (i.e. can they simply stand still within the batters box regardless of other action) but I have never heard of the batter having any rights to occupy the plate after the catcher receives the pitch.

Teaching Elder posted:

I don't know why you would be against intentionally throwing inside.  The inside line is legally given to the hitter.  But that, in no way, should discourage a pitcher from throwing inside any more than if the hitter were standing as far away from the plate as possible.

Throwing inside is part of the game.  If a player is aggressive enough to stand on top of the plate to take part of what is the pitcher's, the pitcher has a right to be aggressive as well.  

Your boy needs to say something.  There is nothing wrong with respectfully pleading a case.  His pitcher needs the support.   If things are technically legal, then you have to work with the situation.  But, by all means, don't back down or give in.  If you give a kid three free bases, you've at least made him earn them.

It's not really throwing inside, it 's more like throwing the normal pitch in the inside corner.  It's the batter's positioning that make it "feel" or "look" like you are throwing inside.  I am in no way saying hit the kid, but the kid - any kid - needs to understand that as they creep closer and closer to the plate, they are simply putting themselves more at risk of getting hit.  If the get too close against a good pitcher, they might actually get hit and simply have it called a strike.  A good pitcher is not going to allow the batter to dictate his pitch selection and placement.

He made the throw to 3B but had to pause and make another step to get farther away from the batter who was standing mostly over the plate (lefty). He finished his swing with his back foot standing on the plate and pretty much stayed as much in the way as possible, whether intentionally or unintentionally (I don't read minds).

I meant deliberately throwing inside with the intent to hit the batter on top of the plate or make him dive out of the way. This is HS and control is often not want we'd like to see.

When an opposing batter crowds or leans, what I do--instead of whining to the umpire--is challenge my team "WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT?"

Nothing like chin music on multiple pitches to recalibrate a hitter . . .

At a HS game last week batter was doing this. With two strikes he got hit on the elbow on a pitch that appeared to be on the inside corner -- umpire called him out, ruling that the pitch was a strike.

In terms of stepping on the plate during a swing, if he swings and misses it's just a strike, but if he makes contact with the ball, the ball is dead and the batter is out.

Again, not to sound like I'm suggesting trying to hurt the batter, but I would suggest having the catcher move into the plate to make the throw and if the batter happens to be there, then sort of run over them.  The batter cannot occupy that space without interference getting called.  My understanding if that the batter has a responsibility not to interfere.  This would include not stepping back in the box and hindering a throw and certainly not exiting the box in such a way as to interfere.  I think the solution in this instance is to ensure the interference call gets made.  No hesitation - just move through space that belongs to you and if you run into the batter then hope the ump make the correct call.

Any umps wish to provide some clarity around batter interference on catcher throws?

At some level, the pitchers need to be able to execute their pitches and not get too rattled when the hitter starts leaning over.  This hitter is legally allowed to toe the line and can legally place body parts in the strike zone.  If he is successful in getting the pitcher to move all his pitches 4-5 inches further out, then he has won the battle.  Even a good fastball on the inside HALF of the plate can prove effective.  

Nuke83 posted:

Nothing like chin music on multiple pitches to recalibrate a hitter . . .

+ 1

freddy77 posted:

When an opposing batter crowds or leans, what I do--instead of whining to the umpire--is challenge my team "WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT?"

Whining is such a pejorative term. By your logic, everyone should crowd the plate and HBP and potentially injuries skyrocket. No thanks.

When the shoe fits and all... but in a way you are correct.  Doing the same thing is not the answer.  Then the game becomes a bush-league farce.   

Depending on the type of hitter, crowding the plate can be a very good and perfectly legal tactic and is used often.  A pull hitter can use it to make sure he doesn't have to swing at pitches away.  A disciplined leadoff type can use it to "shrink the zone" on a pitcher.  Any hitter behind in the count with two strikes can use it to shift some of the advantage back toward the hitter, effectively taking away the outside chase pitch (we preach this to most of our hitters).  Average HS pitchers have difficulty controlling the inside of the plate when a hitter is on top of it (as close as the line allows).  There is nothing illegal about it so I don't know what the catcher or HC would have to say to an umpire.  

Most players who use the tactic are more than willing to take the HBP and it may be worth the opposing HC mentioning before the game to the ump that player x has ten HBP's this year and tends to lean across the plate into the strike zone.  

As far as stepping on the plate, like 2019dad said, swing-and-miss is just a strike.  Hitter is only called out if he puts the ball in play.  As far as interference on a throw, I'll let an umpire chime in on this but I think, generally, there has to be some intent to interfere or movement in a direction that causes interference.  If the pitch takes the batter toward the plate, I believe there is some allowance.  

I still can't get my head around a throw to 3b having any hindrance from a LH batter, no matter how far onto the plate he steps.

Pitching is more that 50% confidence.  Anytime a hitter crowds the plate to the extreme that is being described in this thread he is issuing a challenge to the pitcher.  To be successful, the pitcher has no choice but to throw inside.  If the batter gets hit, so be it.  Any good hitter that crowds the plate understands that there is risk involved.  A good umpire (unfortunately there are not enough of those) understands that too.  A pitcher can't give in to a challenge and expect to be a consistent winner.

Thanks for the responses. All of the above did not change the outcome of the game. My son, and hopefully the HC, will handle this a little better in the future. Lessons learned.

I feel, but I do not know, that the player, as leadoff, was getting on top of the plate as much as possible to shrink the SZ and was perfectly willing to get a HBP. In my experience of HS baseball, the batter usually gets the base on a HBP and the opposing HC THEN decides to confront the umpire that the kid has been crowding the plate all along and made no attempt to get out of the way (which is always too little, too late). This is just my experience.

They also need to introduce a rule saying that if a hitter is hit by a pitch on any sort of protective garment, eg. evoshield elbow guards, that a base is not awarded unless the hit area is not over the plate and the pitch is the fourth ball.   If a player is struck while in the strike zone, a strike is called, just the same as if he had no protective shield.  If he is not in the strike zone but over the plate, a no-pitch is called.

Batty67 posted:

Thanks for the responses. All of the above did not change the outcome of the game. My son, and hopefully the HC, will handle this a little better in the future. Lessons learned.

I feel, but I do not know, that the player, as leadoff, was getting on top of the plate as much as possible to shrink the SZ and was perfectly willing to get a HBP. In my experience of HS baseball, the batter usually gets the base on a HBP and the opposing HC THEN decides to confront the umpire that the kid has been crowding the plate all along and made no attempt to get out of the way (which is always too little, too late). This is just my experience.

I think the only thing that can be "handled" is to make sure your pitchers are comfortable working the inside strike zone.  And, as I mentioned before, call attention to the ump before the game any opposing players who have excessive HBP's which is a sure tell they will lean in on pitches in the zone.  

Catchers need to make their normal throw through.  If batter moves into interference, ump will usually take care of that.  If not, appeal.  If overturned, move on.  If it happens again with same player, umps will be more aware.

cabbagedad posted:

I still can't get my head around a throw to 3b having any hindrance from a LH batter, no matter how far onto the plate he steps.

I'm not saying hindered he hindered the throw legally since there was no contact with the ball. The main point of the OP is relating an experience with a player who stood virtually on top of the plate every single pitch and how to respond. Again, thanks for the feedback.  

Teaching Elder posted:

They also need to introduce a rule saying that if a hitter is hit by a pitch on any sort of protective garment, eg. evoshield elbow guards, that a base is not awarded unless the hit area is not over the plate and the pitch is the fourth ball.   If a player is struck while in the strike zone, a strike is called, just the same as if he had no protective shield.  If he is not in the strike zone but over the plate, a no-pitch is called.

Agreed.

In the situation that is described here, I think the catcher should feel free to say something to the umpire right from the get go.  He should not feel the need to defer to his coach.  Normal conversation between players and umpires has been part of the game forever.  It is a shame that somehow that fact has been lost on many of today's umpires.  Back in the day, I would always talk to the umpires.  Most would tell me what their strike zone was once I learned how to ask.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with conversation between a player and an umpire, as long as it is courteous.  In fact, it can make the game more enjoyable to play.

Teaching Elder posted:

They also need to introduce a rule saying that if a hitter is hit by a pitch on any sort of protective garment, eg. evoshield elbow guards, that a base is not awarded unless the hit area is not over the plate and the pitch is the fourth ball.   If a player is struck while in the strike zone, a strike is called, just the same as if he had no protective shield.  If he is not in the strike zone but over the plate, a no-pitch is called.

The rules are fine.

Batty67 posted:

freddy77 posted:

When an opposing batter crowds or leans, what I do--instead of whining to the umpire--is challenge my team "WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT?"

Whining is such a pejorative term. By your logic, everyone should crowd the plate and HBP and potentially injuries skyrocket. No thanks.

Here's my logic:

When opposing batters are crowding or leaning and my team/spectators are looking towards the umpire for relief,  my team turns into Lawyers.

Whereas, same situation, but I tear into my team ("WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT?"),  my team turns into Warriors.

(They're angry at me; but it's productive anger).

That's how I've handled it in the past, and will continue.

From the time he started pitching, my son has always been one to work inside.  His philosophy is that he doesn't care where the batter is - he is throwing to the target the catcher gives him. That's his job.  He can't control if anything gets between him and the target - be it a bat, a body part, or a dove.

Pitchers need to throw to the mitt.  Do that and it is irrelevant where the batter is.

cabbagedad posted:

Depending on the type of hitter, crowding the plate can be a very good and perfectly legal tactic and is used often.  A pull hitter can use it to make sure he doesn't have to swing at pitches away.  A disciplined leadoff type can use it to "shrink the zone" on a pitcher.  

Agreed. This thread brings back fond memories of one of my favorites among my 2017's teammates, a 2014 catcher of the classic spark plug build who was known by the nickname "Girth".  He was the clear senior leader on the team when my kid was a frosh, and though their personalities and game are quite different, I believe he taught my kid as much as anyone ever did about leadership, competitiveness, hard work, and the fire to win, and that those lessons continue to guide my son today, and pay another dividend in my kid's desire to take younger players under his wing now that he's a senior.

Looking at his stats from his senior year:

BA .438   SLG .625  OPS 1.14  Runs 35   RBI  27    2B 9   3B  3    HR 0   Sacs 7   HBP 12.  

Like Cabbage alludes to, this kid  was  dead pull hitter, and he stayed on the plate because a) it made it very hard to get him out on an outside pitch, and b) he was more than willing to wear one for the team, and he did so frequently.  He was also one of those kids who always seemed to get the big hit in the clutch.

Unfortunately his baseball career ended before his college career gained any traction due to an arm injury.

Fair enough Freddy77.

I'm of the opinion that an umpire does exert some control over how the game is playing out and that it is appropriate, as others have chimed in, for the catcher and/or HC to politely let him know that the pitcher is still entitled to the inner part of the plate...in an extreme case as this was. 

Good to start/continue a good dialogue on these boards!

As far as stepping on the plate, like 2019dad said, swing-and-miss is just a strike.  Hitter is only called out if he puts the ball in play.  As far as interference on a throw, I'll let an umpire chime in on this but I think, generally, there has to be some intent to interfere or movement in a direction that causes interference.  If the pitch takes the batter toward the plate, I believe there is some allowance.  

I'm hanging my hat on "movement in a direction that causes interference".  I'm not talking about a pitch 6 inches off where the batter reaches - and steps on plate.  I'm envisioning some pitch over the plate, the kid towing the line, and for some reason stepping out of the box and onto the plate.  As a catcher, my first move on some kid leaning in would most likely be to step in front and throw (especially if pitcher is not getting the ball on the inside half).  If the hitter does not have sufficient control to stay in the box on a pitch over the plate, that is his problem.  

As for having the catcher discuss ahead of time with the umpire, not real sure what he is supposed to say (Hey ump, can you believe this kid?).  I would prefer my catcher not discuss potential batter interference or else is might appear pre-planned.  Maybe have the catcher step up through the plate on throw backs and demonstrate "interference" during first at bat (step on plate on throw back to pitcher).  Make sure the catcher is snug with the plate and not backing up.

On a related note, we have a player on son's team that seems to be getting hit about 1/3 of the time.  He doesn't really crowd the plate and doesn't seem to enjoy getting hit.  He is on the shorter side and maybe doesn't move too graciously.  It almost looks like he's expecting most of the balls to start breaking - they don't and he is not one to jump out of the way).  That said, the pitchers are throwing inside on him for no particular reason - I would scout him as getting HBP way too often and work to avoid giving him a free pass (he has zero HR, zero triples and only a couple of doubles so not some huge threat).  He seems to have some vacuum effect.

Some kids are just ball magnets, from LL up.

I'm not sure of exactly how a catcher brings this up (batter absolutely on top of the plate) to an umpire. He's been the primary catcher on a dozen+ teams since the big diamond and obviously hundreds (thousands?) of batters and this was hands-down, the most extreme plate hugging I've ever seen. So it stands out.

My question is: why are the parents chirping in the stands?

Batty67 posted:

Fair enough Freddy77.

I'm of the opinion that an umpire does exert some control over how the game is playing out and that it is appropriate, as others have chimed in, for the catcher and/or HC to politely let him know that the pitcher is still entitled to the inner part of the plate...in an extreme case as this was. 

Good to start/continue a good dialogue on these boards!

Batty, I believe all the catcher has to do to let the ump know the pitcher is still entitled to the inner part of the plate is to simply set up there with the target on the inner third or on the black.  And, better yet, then the pitcher throws it there.

"True Story"

a few years ago at the College Baseball Coaches Convention in Anaheim. Tony Glynn, Don Mattingly and Jeff Torborg participated in a one hour seminar for 1,000 coaches.

Don related "I can predict my pitch". When I crowd the plate, I know the pitcher will pitch me inside.

I coke the bat, shorten my back swing and swing "hard" and quick. If I back off the plate, I know the pitcher will pitch me outside. Then I wait and hit to left center.

Tony, said I work up and back. Torborg said when Pete Rose was at bat, he would talk, "Jeff I want a fastball" of course Rose knew the pitcher would throw a curve.

"the game within the game".

Bob

3and2Fastball posted:

My question is: why are the parents chirping in the stands?

Yes. That never happens at HS games anywhere.

Sarcasm aside, I would say it was because it was so egregious and every single pitch. Like I said, it stood out.

One umpire's perspective:

There's no point in the catcher or coach or fans saying anything about crowding to the umpire. It's not like we don't notice when there's no view of the pitcher's release point from the normal slot position. 

If the batter assumes a legal stance, there's nothing for me to say or do other than to observe the play.

There's no prohibition against hanging over the plate. 

There is also no prohibition against the pitcher using the entire strike zone.

If the pitcher chooses not to pitch to the inside portion of the plate, that is his choice, not mine. I am neither more or less inclined to call a strike on either edge because of the batter's position.  

The only difference I am aware of in my officiating when the batter crowds the plate is that I have a slightly higher expectation of agility on the part of batters who choose to stand close to the plate when I make a determination as to whether the batter permitted the pitch to hit him and will be awarded first base.

So far this season, I have called one batter out for bunting the ball while one foot was planted entirely outside the box (by a lot), and I have kept three or four batters in the box after being hit by pitches.

I'm not clear on what happened with the double steal, so I have no idea if interference should have been called on that play, but intent is not part of the decision.

So, just to be clear, Swampboy, there is a requirement that a batter make an attempt to get out of the way of a pitch?  Is there some variance on that rule according to level of play?  I've been a little unsure about whether that is an actual rule or just one that coaches, aggrieved fans and pitchers would LIKE to be a real one. 

Teaching Elder posted:

So, just to be clear, Swampboy, there is a requirement that a batter make an attempt to get out of the way of a pitch?  Is there some variance on that rule according to level of play?  I've been a little unsure about whether that is an actual rule or just one that coaches, aggrieved fans and pitchers would LIKE to be a real one. 

My understanding is that a batter is not required to make an attempt to get out of the way of a pitch, but he MAY NOT move himself intentionally into the path of the pitch.  Not sure if that's right - but that's what it should be !!

Thanks for weighing in Swampboy. I'm not "claiming" interference on the double steal. Okay. Let's say on that one swing he connected with the ball and hit it fair and ended up standing directly on the plate when swing was finished (and assuming you noticed this, which I presume has to be more likely with a batter standing on top of the plate every single pitch)? What if he did the above but fouled it off? Curious if there is any call to make. 

Teaching Elder,

In Federation rules, batters may not permit the pitch to hit them. 

There is considerable subjectivity in deciding whether a batter "permits" a pitch to hit him or simply gets hit by a pitch.

I endeavor to give batters a fair opportunity to take a normal load and read the pitch before attempting evasive action. On breaking balls, I give them a chance to stay in long enough to make sure it won't come back to the zone.

The higher the velocity, the less I expect them to react. I keep them in the box when the apparent evasive action is a deliberately ineffective pretext and when they take no evasive action despite having ample time to get out of the way. 

Batty67 posted:

Thanks for weighing in Swampboy. I'm not "claiming" interference on the double steal. Okay. Let's say on that one swing he connected with the ball and hit it fair and ended up standing directly on the plate when swing was finished (and assuming you noticed this, which I presume has to be more likely with a batter standing on top of the plate every single pitch)? What if he did the above but fouled it off? Curious if there is any call to make. 

Where the ball goes and where the batter goes after impact are not relevant to this call. Fair or foul doesn't matter. I've never seen it, but the call could be made on a foul tip.

If the batter hits a pitched ball with either foot or knee completely out of the box at the moment of impact, he is out. A foot in the air does not count as being out of the box. 

Given the tendency of batters box lines to blur early in the game, it has to be blatant to get called. I need to KNOW the foot was absolutely down before impact and was clearly and completely out of the box (including the fuzzy chalk/clay mix) to make the call. It's not a call I look for--it has to call attention to itself.

Apparently there was an epidemic at the college level!

http://baseballnews.com/hit-pi...tens-game-integrity/

The mistake everyone makes on this is to throw the ball 'inside' on plate crowders.  If you do, you will probably hit him and that's what he wants.

If you take your yard stick out, you will see that all you need to do is throw the ball down the middle.  That's the same as 'inside' to a normal batter.

My pitcher son now loves these hitters.

Other than the “eyeball” test of how much a player crowed the plate, how do you know if a player is getting hit more often than the average? I just added the PAs per HBP column to see what the players I’ve scored for look like. Looks like the aver is 1 HBP every 25 PAs. So how often are these players crowing the plate and leaning in getting hit?