Removing pitcher

As a coach I would be extremely upset, regardless of the age of the player--the key concern is the pitchers arm--if the kid hurts and admits it, most kids won't, why do what this ump did--it was the start of the game not a win or lose situation in a game--why make the kid "tough it out"?

TR,
Exactly what our coach said. He was irate that the kid had to throw to the one batter. It didn't make any sense. And obviously, starting off the game, its not like we were faking an injury to bring in a reliever who hadn't been warming up in the bullpen. To me, and the rest of my team, it didn't make much sense to us.

hh55

I would have gone totally beserk--the game is about the kids--I have no what the rule book says but d a m n the rulles--it is the kids arm--and like I say how many kids do you know who ask to be taken out of a game?

I believe the rule is he has to pitch to one batter so he would have 'return' eligibility later if the coach wishes to bring him back to pitch. The penalty for not pitching to one batter would be, he could play a defensive position, but could not return as a pitcher in the that game.

The bottom line----the kid was in pain with a sore arm----

He doesn't have to face a batter if he's leaving due to an injury.

quote:

Originally posted by highheat55:
My question is, did the umpire get it right?

No, he did not. And to help prevent this from happening again, I would suggest the head coach place a call to his assigner and calmly report the incident. Hopefully, he would use this as a teachable moment for the entire association.

I'm glad to hear that he shouldn't have had to pitch. Based on that, hopefully the same situation wouldn't occur again but, if it did...

If the umps required one batter and the coach was that concerned about his pitcher's arm, why not just tell the ump its an intentional walk...one batter faced and saves the arm...

I agree it isn't the best way to start a game, but it sure beats having to make the kid throw...

Honestly if my guy did something like this he and I are going to have a talk about making smarter decisions about if he can or cannot pitch so we won't be in this position. He needs to be honest and say he can go or not. If he's not sure then he needs to tell me so I can get another guy warmed up with him.

But if this does happen my pitcher will not take the mound. If it means I get tossed and we have to forfeit my guy will not step foot on that mound. In fact before I leave the field I will call the assignor and discuss (calmly) with him. I don't want to show umpires up but if it leads to this then he will never forget this rule again.

Was there more to this?

Did the player then go play another position and continue his participation in the game?

I simply can't believe a coach would not be allowed to make a sub that burned a player at any point in a game, ever. Clearly he was the starting pitcher and he was injured, so he shouldn't have to pitch. Nor should he be allowed to move to another position to continue playing.

Something doesn't sound right.

There is no way any umpire should ever not know this, why would anyone think an injured player must continue?
It should be: okay skip, got a new one for us?
At 8 warm-ups, ask the new F1 if he's ready, if he's not give him some more. Guess it's a good thing F1 hadn't lost his vision instead of a sore arm, that'd a been scary.

No reason to go "berserk" though.

The umpire/crew obviously were hosed on this interpretation.
As the coach, the kid just doesn't pitch end of story.

Let the crew try and come up with a ruling (penalty) on something they just made up.

If they say it's a forfeit.
HC: I'd like to protest that decision, get my new guy in here and get on with this game.

Forfeits are pretty reserved for not enough players, riots (fights), going berserk, not taking the field, delaying, stuff like that.

Well, after the pitcher threw to the one batter, he became the DH. However, this wasn't the reason he had to face a batter in this situation. Our coach was figuring that the pitcher was just going to be done for the day after pitching to the one batter so when he was discussing our pitcher being forced to throw to one batter with the ump, the assumption was that the pitcher was going to leave the game completely. Also, could our coach have protested the umpires "call" or rather his decision when it happened?

NFHS: Rule 3 Sect. 1 Article 1: After the umpire has received the official lineup card prior to the game, the player listed as pitcher shall pitch until the first opposing batter has been put out or has advancd to first base.
PENALTY: If the starting pitcher does not face one batter, he may play another position, but not return to pitch.

First, asc noted the pitcher doesn't have to pitch to the first batter period, injury or not. I am assuming Fed rules here. If the named starter doesn't pitch to the first batter then he can stay in the game but can not return as a pitcher. Yes, you could have and should have protested if your conference allows protests. If I read your post correctly he left the mound after one batter and became the DH. How the heck did that happen. The only ruleset that allows that is NCAA. So it sounds as if the umpire screwed the pooch at least twice.