I can’t remember the year, but it was post-season play and Pete Rose was with the Phillies. The Pitcher tried the brush back and Pete stared him down and took the pain as he got hit. Never even flinched. Then he took his base. Crowd went wild.Sorry for going on topic so much. Here’s an attempt to turn back.
An interesting twist on the original question might be to look at brush back pitches. Is it morally acceptable for the pitcher to purposely throw inside of the strike zone to make the batter uncomfortable? I have to say yes as long as the pitcher isn’t intentionally trying to hit the batter. One caveat would say to keep it below the shoulders: an inside fastball across the chest tells a batter to back off but an inside pitch across the jaw is provoking a fight. This is also assuming the pitcher has the necessary control to throw such a pitch.
When Walter Camp of Yale UniversityRealistically, most modern sports have evolved from some earlier game. While modern Association Football and Rugby Football were both certainly invented in England, no one really knows where football in its most elemental form was invented. Likewise, while American Football evolved from Rugby, I would say its rules have diverged enough to be considered a new invention.
–
Bill
I completely agree. I remember reading somewhere, hitting is all about timing, and as a pitcher, your job is to disrupt that timing. A properly thrown brush back pitch can make the batter just nervous enough to disrupt his timing. However, few pitchers below the professional or collegiate level have enough control to throw it. I certainly wouldn’t tell a little leaguer to throw one.Sorry for going on topic so much. Here’s an attempt to turn back.
An interesting twist on the original question might be to look at brush back pitches. Is it morally acceptable for the pitcher to purposely throw inside of the strike zone to make the batter uncomfortable? I have to say yes as long as the pitcher isn’t intentionally trying to hit the batter. One caveat would say to keep it below the shoulders: an inside fastball across the chest tells a batter to back off but an inside pitch across the jaw is provoking a fight. This is also assuming the pitcher has the necessary control to throw such a pitch.
You sure you weren’t watching Jai-Alai?You know you could be right. I just remember the first time that I watched it professional lacrosse, I was in Miami, FL and the players were mainly from South America, or Latin countries. Now that has been some time ago, and you know the brain if not used. It was not a sport I liked, I just went with a friend. I will investigate this further and report to you. OK??
What does money have to do with it?Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you’re playing for money.
That’s why batters make that decision well ahead of time–so in the heat of the moment they don’t have to make a decision. They choose to cheat well before the ball is pitched.I really do not think that batters would have time to ponder whether they should or should not try to get out of the was of a 90 MPH fastball. It requires a split second decision. They could second-guess themselves after the fact but not before; therefore, since they were unable to ponder the circumstances and make a decision before the fact, no sin was committed.
Yes, it is cheating.It’s not cheating - it’s being stupid!
Speaking as the father of a 12yo who’s 3 stitches just dissolved…
(got pasted in the cheek by a wierd breaking 50mph Little League fastball - he actually ducked INTO it…)
If you’ve got the cahone’s to take a 90MPH ball in the chops/ribs/arm/whatever, and risk permanant injury to your career & body… you can take your free 90 foot walk - odds are you won’t make it 'round the horn anyway.
The rules say if a ball goes over the fence it is a home run. The rules also say if you catch the ball, thus preventing it from going over the fence, it is an out. There is no breaking of the rules or cheating by doing what is designed into the game.If a ball goes over the fence in fair territory, it’s a homerun. If I’m a centerfielder that KNOWS the ball is going over the fence, yet I leap up and reach over to catch the ball, thus putting the batter out instead of allowing him the homerun, is that a bad moral decision?
If I deliberately slide into 2nd base so that it causes the player to not turn the double play at first, is that a bad moral decision? If I know a batter can’t resist a fastball high and outside and I throw a changeup that drops out of the reach of his bat at the last second, is that a bad moral decision? If I slide into home plate and the ump calls me safe but yet I know the tag was applied first, do I jump up and call myself out to make a proper moral decision?
This whole thing can get rather ridiculous.
If it is done intentionally, and it often is, I agree.The pitcher is wrong by throwing the ball at the batter.
So, you are saying it is morally OK to intentionally throw a pitch at a batter who stands in the wrong place? …two wrongs make a right? That’s like saying if an Irish-Protestant bombs a Catholic Church in Belfast, it is OK for the Irish-Catholic to bomb a Protestant Church?Hey, if a batter shows up my pitcher by standing at the plate and watching a Homer go out of the park, or if he crowds the plate (my pitcher OWNS those 17 inches!) he’s gonna get brushed back.
Right on. This is exactly the point. The pitcher is limited only to not intentionally hit the batter (or not show a careless indifference so as to pretend it wasn’t intentional, only probable).Sorry for going on topic so much. Here’s an attempt to turn back.
An interesting twist on the original question might be to look at brush back pitches. Is it morally acceptable for the pitcher to purposely throw inside of the strike zone to make the batter uncomfortable?
Why is this a gray area? With the exception of boxing (which stands on the fringe of morally acceptable in my opinion), no sport condones intentionally injuring another player.Lets be practical here, there is really no sinning done in sports unless you are actually trying to cause injury to someone, and even this a gray area.
This is entirely incorrect. It is everyone’s job. Players who try to beat the rules by cheating are intentionally supporting unfair play, hoping the rules and officials will miss it. With younger players, it is especially true that it is the job of the adult manager to instill fair play in the players.It is the job of the rules and the officials to insure fair play, not that of the players or managers.
Agreed.I see a lack of knowledge of the game here.
Agreed, and it is morally wrong.First of all, batters will intentionally not move in order to be hit all the time.
I wouldn’t use the word “lucky”, but this is the logic often used to justify cheating.If you take the pitch, even the best hitters only have a 1/3 of continuing their at bat and still getting on. If you lucky enough to get the ball thrown at you, you get on automatically.
A pitcher throwing a ball at the batter SHOULD NOT be a part of the game. This logic shows a regression in thinking that if the umpire doesn’t claim a rule infraction, it must be OK. That’s like a prosecutor choosing to not prosecute a politician for doing drugs, and the politician thereafter assumes it is OK to do so. After all, everyone does it, and he’s never been convicted.Also, a pitcher throwing a ball at the hitter is simply part of the game. He needs to for various reasons, such as commanding the strike zone, protecting a teammate, etc. I don’t see what all the complaining here is, its just strategy on both sides.
Agreed.I see a lack of knowledge of the game here.
Agreed, and it is morally wrong.First of all, batters will intentionally not move in order to be hit all the time.
I wouldn’t use the word “lucky”, but this is the logic often used to justify cheating.If you take the pitch, even the best hitters only have a 1/3 of continuing their at bat and still getting on. If you lucky enough to get the ball thrown at you, you get on automatically.
A pitcher throwing a ball at the batter SHOULD NOT be a part of the game. This logic shows a regression in thinking that if the umpire doesn’t claim a rule infraction, it must be OK. That’s like a prosecutor choosing to not prosecute a politician for doing drugs, and the politician thereafter assumes it is OK to do so. After all, everyone does it, and he’s never been convicted.Also, a pitcher throwing a ball at the hitter is simply part of the game. He needs to for various reasons, such as commanding the strike zone, protecting a teammate, etc. I don’t see what all the complaining here is, its just strategy on both sides.
I see you state correctly that the rules say the batter must try to avoid being hit. You also correctly state that the responsibility for making that judgment call is on the umpire. But you contradict yourself when you state the batter is not intending to deceive if he intentionally deceives the umpire.Look, the bottom line is this: the rules state that the batter is entitled to first base when hit by a pitch provided that he tries to get out of the way. The responsibility for making that judgement call lies solely on the umpire; the batter is not intending to deceive anyone if he elects (as many do) not to avoid the pitch.
This is exactly the point. We are taught at a young age to break the rules when we can. We grow up thinking that it is not only OK to break the rules thusly, it is expected, and if you don’t get called for cheating by the umpire, it is just a part of the game. When you were trained to spin away, it wasn’t to protect you, it was to show you the proper way to cheat and minimize injury. Ever hear the phrase “take one for the team”?In fact, I remember being trained in high school to spin away from the pitch rather than to duck or back off, thus presenting my back and protecting my face and other soft parts.
Much in the same way it is not the Police Department’s responsibility to police themselves if no prosecutor is going to take them to court. If the prosecutor blows the call, it’s OK for the police to be bad cops.Furthermore, since the judgements on all plays are made by the umpires, it is not the players’ responsibility to police themselves if the umpires blow a call.
If a politician takes a bribe that a judge thought may have been a repayment of a loan, that is still a sin by the politician. Umpires are there to try to catch cheating when it is committed, but if they fail to catch it, it is still cheating.Cheating is doing things that are not permitted in order to gain an advantage one shouldn’t have (e.g., scuffing the ball, corking the bat, using steroids). If the player presents a situation that the umpire must judge in a split second, and the umpire gets it wrong, that is merely a misjudgement by the umpire, not a sin by the player.
I agree completely.Even if it were sinful, I don’t see how it could be mortal.