Skip to main content

Here is my dilemma.

 

I am a high school baseball coach, and the first season I witnessed these kids playing their first game I was disgusted. Their coaches never did anything but sit there, and the boys moved out of the way of the baseball at the plate 36 times. Simple math, that is 9 free runs, and in our league, when the first pitcher hits 4 kids, he is removed. Every pitcher after that can only hit 2 before they are removed. Quite simply, if those 36 balls had hit our team, we would have won by default without having to hit, run, field, pitch or even play the game.

 

Keep in mind this team had a head coach that for the last 7 years lost every single game he played with them.

 

Now I am head coach, and this was our first practice:

I stood at the plate, with my helmet on, and showed the boys how to correctly turn in to the ball to best reduce possibility for any injury, in short, there is an extremely small chance of injury this way. I let them throw the ball as hard as they could, and took 16 welts from my team.

Next, I put each kid up there and let them take a pitch as well. I throw in the upper 90's, but I was only barely touching 60 in practice.

They all had fun with this, took it to heart and since then, very few kids have moved out of the way at the plate. However, if they do move during a game, they take one from me in practice much harder.

 

So here is the deal, I've been getting some heat for this training tactic, to which my rebuttal always goes unanswered:

 

So would you not have me hit ground balls to the boys, because the ball might hop up and hit them?

Would you not have me run the team, because they might twist an ankle?

Would you not have me let them play catch because they might miss the ball and get hit?

Would you not have me let them bat during a game because the pitcher might hit them?

Would you tell a football coach they cannot have the boys tackling during practice because someone might get a jammed finger?

 

The conversation always drops there, because no one has any real answer to my questions. The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, is that in every sport, there is a risk of injury. And to shun one part of the sport for want of safety is to shun the entire sport. You cannot have runners run the bases but not slide because they might get a skinned elbow, you cannot have the catcher move out of the way of a wild pitch because it might hit him in the arm. Quite simply, injury possibilities are everywhere, and in this game, the whole point of my teaching is to keep these kids from getting injured. If the kids hated this tactic, they would let me know. Instead, they always try to see who has the biggest welts at the end of the game.

 

My question is this, is there any legal difficulties that could be presented to me if I continue this training method? If it is completely legal and under my jurisdiction, I will continue. But if a lawsuit should be able to present itself against this training method, I will cease immediately.

Thank you in advance for any help on this topic.

 

The state of jurisdiction is Kansas, USA.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Yes, you should cease immediately.

 

You devote practice time to teach a tactic prohibited by the rules (NFHS 7-3-4), using a "training method" that intentionally creates multiple welts on your players, and you punish players who won't intentionally get hit by pitches by subjecting them to a more painful version of your training. 

 

You have placed yourself and your school in an indefensible position.

 

In our league, this rule is only observed when the batter does not make any movement at all. Turning on the pitch is acceptable, and the result takes the batter to first base. In practice, I will cease hitting the kids with pitches when they move out of the way during a game, but I think that it is acceptable for the kids to safely turn in on a pitch as long as they are not in the strike zone.

So when you get sued for intentionally inflicting pain on minors while teaching them an illegal tactic, your defense will be that the rule against letting yourself get hit by a pitch is seldom enforced? 

Yeah, that should work just fine. Forget I said anything.

Now that you have your legal plan all worked out, perhaps you'd consider a coaching suggestion. Instead of spending practice time drilling the kids, have you considered teaching them how to hit, field, and throw?  I know it's kind of a radical idea, but I have heard stories about some coaches having success with that approach.

Funny enough, our school lost every game for 7 years under their old head coach, including spring / summer / fall baseball. After I took over, we went undefeated during summer ball, and are now 2-0 in fall ball. So I think my strategies work a bit better than you would think. And my "Legal" plan would be that the safest way to avoid getting hit would be to step back, in the event you cannot do that, turning in to minimize the damage is necessary. But I thank you for your advice, as I now am aware that this is illegal to demonstrate on the practice field. Thank you for your time mr. administrator.

Swampboy,
 
You're arguing with a guy who claims to throw upper 90's but he's coaching HS baseball?  The guy's a troll.  Ignore him.
 
 
Originally Posted by Swampboy:
So which is it? 
Are you trying to capture those 9 free runs per game by punishing boys who back away from pitches or are you teaching a defensive maneuver for those occasions when that can't back away?

You've changed your story.

 

Good one HV...

 

If you do an internet search, I believe you will find the article on the guy who was recently charged with criminal violations for using this very same technique.  As a matter of fact, your scenario sounds as if you are that coach....are you?

 

A simple question, why not use tennis balls or whiffle balls?  If you are truly teaching a "technique", you will accomplish the goal without inflicting possible injury.  

 

I'll rebutt all your questions in one statement....the difference in your examples and your bean ball drill, is that you are INTENTIONALLY causing unnecessary, potentially injury causing, contact.  Legally, if a kid gets hurt during your drill, you will be held liable under transferred intent, in all the other scenarios, ground balls, sliding, running etc...that is just happenstance if an injury occurs

Originally Posted by Green Light:

 

 

Anyway, I agree that this is a practice of dubious developmental benefit, and one that is fraught with legal risk.

I agree with that statement.  And also agree with MTH that the original poster is a troll.

 

Even if there were no legal system, I still would have a problem with teaching my whole team to wear pitches--and setting high expectations for them to do it in games--because many players don't have the native ability to read pitches well enough to read which ones to wear and which ones to duck. 

The coach throws in the upper 90s? Now there is something I would like to see.  Last time a high school coach threw like that he (Jim Morris) became a MLB rookie at age 37 And they ended up making a movie (The Rookie) about him.

 

Anyway, intentionally hitting kids with real baseballs is not only stupid, but it is called assault and you might end up behind bars.

This seems like a troll.

 

They lose every game for seven years because their guys are afraid to stand in there.  New aggressive coach comes in and the only variable he changes is that he makes them more afraid of practice than standing in there during games and they suddenly start winning.  Defies credulity.  I am tempted to close this thread but will leave it open just in case there is one knucklehead out there who thinks this might be a legitimate coaching strategy. 

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

The coach throws in the upper 90s? Now there is something I would like to see.  Last time a high school coach threw like that he (Jim Morris) became a MLB rookie at age 37 And they ended up making a movie (The Rookie) about him.

 

Anyway, intentionally hitting kids with real baseballs is not only stupid, but it is called assault and you might end up behind bars.

Not only does the coach throw in the upper 90's, he does it with sufficient control to consistently safely drill kids in the ribs and thigh - never an errant ball near the head or anything (I mean, not really that big a deal since they ARE all wearing batting helmets and all...[uh, they ARE wearing batting helmets for this drill, right?])...

I don't know which is dumber - doing the drills as described by the original poster, or putting it here for the whole world to see.  Kind of like bringing the rope to your own hanging, no?

 

I can only say that I hope there are some concerned parents or staff members who get this guy out of the dugout pronto, before he kills someone. 

 

And, I hate the notion that you think you are doing the right thing because you've won a few games.  If winning is the only objective, if you are okay with the idea of putting kids at risk (in practice or games), I can only be glad that you aren't coaching my kid.  

 

There are enough inherent risks in baseball without intentionally putting any player in harms way.  You are a danger to your players and should be fired immediately.

 

 

 

OK, so now that you've returned, maybe you can educate us.  I never really understood the whole trolling thing.  You post something on an information based site asking questions and trying to make it ridiculous but just believable enough that people might bite.  For what purpose?  There are enough that come here with real viewpoints not that far removed from your post.  So, I don't believe anyone else will "LOL".

I think copping to the troll charge is the easy way out, but it doesn't matter.

 

If he was playing it straight and really did the things he says and sincerely thought he was justified in doing them, then he is an immature jerk for endangering kids as stage props for his own unresolved masculine identity psychodrama (which would explain the exaggerated velocity).  

 

If he concocted the story to get people to over-react, then a) he failed because all the responses were temperate and rational, and b) he's an immature jerk for wasting people's time without even compensating them with a clever, well-written scenario.

 

Either way, he's an immature jerk.  I harbor no curiosity as to which particular species of immature jerk he happens to be.

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×