Tough decision...what would you have done?

[default]

You are saying that this decision was within the umpires discretion based on rule 10 because there is no rule stating that a pitcher must have at least 1 functional hand. So then you are also saying it is no longer the decision of the parent and coach if she pitches it is up to each individual umpire.

Heavy hitter,

Bretman is one of the most respected people on this forum. Before you go off and bash him, maybe you should listen to what he says. He stated what rule 10 stated and he also stated he would have let her pitch or did you miss that part?

 

[default]

I don't think Heavy Hitter appears to be bashing Bretman (which we all love)... I think what he is ultimately saying is this...

Girl: "I hope I get to pitch tonight Mom... I have really been working hard. I think my screw ball is really working good..."

Mom: "We'll just have to wait and see... The coach said he wants to give you a chance... but you will just have to see what the umpire says... ultimately it is up to him as to whether you are able to pitch..."

 

[default]

Heavy hitter,

Bretman is one of the most respected people on this forum. Before you go off and bash him, maybe you should listen to what he says. He stated what rule 10 stated and he also stated he would have let her pitch or did you miss that part?

I do respect bretman, and I know he is one of the most respect people on here. How did disagreeing with someone become bashing. I have no doubt that what OnTheBucket and his partner did, during the game was done out of concern for her safety. That also does not mean I think he is a bad person or a bad umpire. It means, in this one case I do believe the actions that were taken were wrong. So yes that means I think he overstep his authority in this one situation.

Bretman did say rule 10 gives the umpire the authority to make this decision because it not covered in the rule book.

That's not the way Rule 10 works. It gives the umpire the ability to rule on points NOT covered by the rule book.

Obviously, if there was a rule that said "the pitcher must have at least one functional hand", then this point WOULD be covered by the rule book.

Rule 10 is not a license for the umpire to make up any ruling he can dream of. It would be impossible for anyone book (a finite resource) to cover every possible scenario that might pop up on a ball field (an infinite number of possibilities). Rule 10 only applies when something happens that's not covered by rule.

I also know he said he would have allowed her to pitch. But, he also said they were with-in their authority to not allow her to pitch. That means the final decision on whether this girl is allowed to pitch is not up the parents and coach but it is up to umpire, and I think that is wrong

 

[default]

Heavy Hitter,

My bad. I'm sorry. The way I read it was a bashing. The one thing I hate about forums, Im's, etc..you can't really interpret how the person is speaking and can't read (body language) on how they are saying it.

 

[default]

Onthebucket ... I couldn't respect you more for bringing the situation up for all to think and debate about. As stated previously, after having had a chance to think about the situation and others' opinions, I would have allowed her to play. But I also respect the fact that you were to trying to do what you felt at the time was the right thing to do for the safety of the child. Those here characterizing your decision as overzealous umpiring are way off base on this subject in my humble opinion.

 

[default]

We are talking realistically and bringing in a situation of a blind girl playing is beyond goofy. Want to bring up a quadriplegic next. Are we children or adults debating here?

Now a girl with one arm can realistically happen and it has but you all avoid answering this question:

A. Is the girl who is playing third at around 20-25 yards and creeping in MORE - LESS - EQUAL able to defend herself against a hard line drive than the pitcher at 40 feet?? Joe what is professional opinion, which one can defend themselves better?

Now the girl in question, again shouldn't be playing with-out a mask but should she be banned when girls without disabilities get in more dangerous situations and are not? How are her reflexes? Doubt the ump who knew her for 5-10 minutes would know.

Surprised you are bashing the handicapped. What "special treatment" did she ask for? None, she just wanted to play like everyone else with the same set of rules. No one is pretending handicaps don't force physical limitations. She has one less arm to defend herself so she IS at more risk than a girl with two arms. How much more depends on her reflexes. The handicap is acknowledged but why should she be singled out when others get in equal or more dangerous situations and are allowed to play?

UNLESS you want put in print that the girl playing in close at third with her arms hanging down by the ground ready to field a bunt can do better at defending herself against that line drive than you are discriminating. UNLESS you want to say you know that the girl in question doesn't have the reflexes to do better than another girl with two arms but very slow reflexes than you may be a redneck. ha jk discriminating.

How many two armed pitchers get hit in the face every year? Why were they allowed to pitch? How many corners get hit in the face every year?

And I REPEAT I think this girls parents are ignorant to let her pitch without a mask but I think that about every mask-less pitcher's parents. This isn't a debate about that, it's about whether the ump should be the one deciding if a girl playing with-in the rules should be able to play with a handicap based on their limited knowledge of the players ability. At some point maybe (the quadriplegic), but at this point?? Shouldn't the decision be the parents and coaches? And if the decision is the ump's shouldn't it be carried over to the corners? Ump keep them from playing too close.

There are so many weaknesses in your "argument" that it's hard to know where to begin. But I will begin with your quote, "Surprised you are bashing the handicapped." That is so outrageous and offensive that it completley ruins your credibility with me. Fortunately, my post is still there and people can determine on their own whether they think I was "bashing the handicapped."

And what's wrong with quadriplegics? Why are you making light of them? Do you hate them? Yes, that is all silly, but no more absurd than your horrific comment about me supposedly bashing handicapped people. You ask whether we are children or adults here, and I suggest a look in the mirror would be well-advised.

To address one of your "points," I would gather that a girl playing 20-25 "yards" from home plate will be able to defend herself just fine! Did you put as much care and thought into into that sentence as the one accusing me of bashing handicapped people?

I could go on and answer your questions, but, frankly, I don't feel like it. When you go around accusing people of racism, sexism, bashing handicapped people, or any other unwarranted slur, you take yourself out of any civilized debate.

 

[default]

To respond to your post....

Was it off base? Yes, it was off base. I do not believe that I was overzealous.

I'm reading, No other umpires had expressed concerned, she had pitched previously this year and that brought the mother down from the stands who was not pleased with our ruling. Yes, according to the young lady's coach, no other umpire crew had expressed concern to him. Yes, the mother came down from the stands and was not pleased with our decision not to let her pitch.

You went over to express concern, you were told she had pitched previously and no other umpires expressed concern. Again, yes.You never said "I told her, the coach and her mom that if she wore a mask she could pitch", Yes, that is correct. As I remember the conversation that I had, I did not say those words. I can't answer for my partner who also speaking with both people. There were moments I was speaking with one while he talked to the other. It was only later that I discovered that there were no masks. It was the fact that she didn't have a mask on that led me to believe that the coach and the mother may not have been fully aware of the danger of being in the circle, looking down at her glove as she tried to put it on her hand. I tried to explain that to them but they continued to say that she had done it before and that it was discrimination.you go on to say "it was obvious she could not protect herself from a line shot up the middle" Yes, based on my observation, the change over was slow and somewhat clumsy. She looked down at her glove, not at the plate area. It appeared to me that she was going to be in a defenseless position.

So whats the deal? Did you say she could pitch if she wore a mask, or did you say its obvious she cant protect herself from a line drive up the middle? I said the second not the first. I wish I could answer the hypothetical next question that many of you might have....Would you have changed your mind if there was a mask available or she was wearing a mask in the first place? I can't say for sure but I'm leaning toward yes. At least she would have some sort of facial protection.

The league said you had no authority to stop her if coach and mom agreed to put her in the circle. Yes, in a letter to me and in a phone call to my partner the next day, our association president made it clear that we should have let her pitch.That doesnt sound like an overzealous ump? Again, I do not believe that, given my observation of the situation at that moment, and based on my experience as a coach at various levels for 15 years, and as a pitcher's dad, I was overzealous. But I respect your right to disagree with me..

 

[default]

It was a tough decision and you did what you thought was right at the moment. I give you credit for bringing it up for discussion because you are trying to make the right calls in the future.

 

[default]

OnTheBucket - after closely reading your posts, I think you made what YOU felt was the best decision at the time. At the end of the day, if you can look back and say "I made the correct decision" - that's all that matters. No one got hurt, except maybe a little pride. Who knows? Maybe your decision opened the mother's eyes somewhat, and just maybe taught the pitcher a life lesson about being tough about her "handicap".

I think you discriminated, but I don't think for a minute you intended prejudice. As Joe A. stated - there's a big difference. You were doing what was within your power and with the kid's best interest in mind. No one can or should ever fault you for that.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone has "handicaps" to some degree. It's how each individual deals with those that makes the difference - whether or not they are allowed to become disabilities. This gal may eventually become quite proficient in pitching in spite of her perceived disability. Then it actually would be silly to label her as "handicapped".

The mask issue just muddies the waters. If there are travel kids swinging high tech bats with rec. players on defense, the problem is not the rec. player's reflexes or inability, it is the insanity and lack of common sense of an organization to allow that to happen in the first place! No umpire should ever be put in that position to make a decision. Maybe you should address that in a letter to the league organizers.

 

[default]

This is obviously gotten to be a pretty charged subject. Unfortunately a few of you are flirting with a leave of absence by not keeping the debate respectful (it might behoove those few to re-examine their statements and consider an apology to those they directed their comments at - privately is fine). Bottom line here is that an umpire made a decision that he was entitled to make (whether you like rule 10 or not), but it is not one everyone is going to agree with. Opinions have been expressed, and arguments presented from both side. Therefore, this subject is closed.