Catcher Throws Ball Into Batter During Texas Softball Game - Was it Intentional? Ejectable? Analysis 

Agree with your assessment. First time it happens, it's hard to say for certain what's going on. Can't really eject without some pretty clear evidence. The second time it happens, especially with no play at 3B, and it's pretty clear what's going on now. I'm ejecting the catcher. I'm hoping I'll be backed up by my assignors when I say it was necessary for player safety. We can't just let the catcher keep pegging batters from two feet away.

Looks like a coached tactic. However, that's MC, and an EJ in the 6th inning.

Watch closely the catcher isn't throwing to third base or F5, this is NOT a play on a runner. This is an attempt to draw a call.

The earlier one is borderline, but nothing called. The second one was intentional and should have resulted in the catcher/manager ejected. The umpire shrugging his shoulders in both situations with no warnings or ejections for the second instance is ludicrous.

Oh god... the first one is borderline.. I could see why the no call simply because even with the ball going to the fence.. the runner made no attempt to move and really, even a back pick only could have hurt the defense as the 3rd basemen was in front of the runner... .. the second one is malicious contact/unsportsmanlike... the second one would have had my game down a catcher and her manager.

While my gear and strike/ball counter has been put in the attic for a long time that catcher would have been GONE immediately on the 2nd "offense" and the coach would have followed with even a little objection. Horrible unsportsmanlike conduct and actions!

As a 39 year veteran of umpiring high school softball, I would have ejected the catcher in the 6th inning for her in sporting actions. The coach may have followed depending on his/her actions.

Call me crazy but I don't know why she should ever play the game again. That looked insane.

Throwing a ball into the back of a runner 60 feet away is one thing. Throwing at their face from 2 feet away is something else entirely. Especially when there is no play and it has already happened once that game. This is something that usually only happens a couple times a season if that (unless intentional)

That catcher is clearly trying to throw it in the face of the batter.

First one feels scummy, but there's the backpick element. I'd keep my eye on F2. Second one is no doubt Malicious Contact and Unsportswomanlike Conduct. F2 is ejected. I would write it up as a player safety issue as well as MC/UC.

This was actually in a Texas HS playoff game. The second time it happened the catch should've been ejected.

This is something that you see maybe once in you baseball lifetime. Not a batter being hit by a thrown ball from the catcher, but a batter being hit on the front side from a catcher. To see it twice in the same game and with there being absolutely no play at 3rd during the second one, it is clearly malicious contact and the catcher should have been suspended

She’s basically throwing it in the third base dugout. That’s intent and that becomes a safety issue and high school rules all revolve around safety

I was taught to throw through and get hung up with the batter. Both plays seemed excessive and intent to hurt someone.

I appreciate your detailed and thorough breakdown. This was clearly malicious. Unless she is the absolute worst catcher ever, she had no intent but to drill the batter on both attempts, not even close to looking like she's trying to throw it to third. She is either fucked in the head, or her coach is for inciting her to do this (which should definitely not be mislabeled as any sort of gamesmanship, just a pure bush league attempt to manipulate the rules). Either way there is no room in the game for it.

Neither of the balls thrown by the softball player were going anywhere need a fielder

Looks like the hp umpire doesn’t know the rules or is totally overwhelmed with umpiring this game. Looks lazy to me!

Disgusting behavior. Sad that this person is out there. Hopefully, she gets help.

The crazy part is that the same catcher did this during a previous game before this one. So it's clear that it's Intentional

As I see both instances, they are both intentional. Clearly, the catcher is not making a play to 3rd base. She is purposely directing the ball towards the hitter. In fact, she steps right at the hitter in both cases and throws at them. Additionally, she hesitates before deciding to make the throw. Even if a runner was stealing, the catcher would not have gotten the base runner. In both instances, the hitter is clearly out of the throwing lane to 3rd base. It's obvious that this is a vague rule that does not take player safety and sportsmanship into consideration. If the hitter was in the throwing lane to 3rd base, there could be an argument made for interference. However, based on what I am looking at, this is clearly a case of intentionally trying to injure another player and both the catcher and coach should be suspended and the game should have been forfeited.

With the benefit of replay, I'd eject on both of these instances. In real time, I'd likely miss the first one, but the second time she'd be gone.

It’s pretty clear after the first one when the coach immediately argues for the batter to be called out for being hit, he knew she was going to hit her, because he thought her too.

First is borderline. Deserves a comment to batter, catcher and coaches to be mindful of all players safety. Second time is malicious contact with an ejection of catcher and coach. You can see after the first throw that she asks umpire for a call. This was coached. Knowing Texas UIL, I would not be surprised is catcher and coach receive suspensions. This has been found in earlier games by same player and coach. Clearly this coach is teaching these acts and deserves to lose his teaching certification (or at minimum not coach again).

next pitch, batter takes a few steps back, wacks catcher in the head while swinging, catcher interference.

Benches should have cleared on that. She could seriously injury somebody.

Definitely on purpose by the catcher, thus causing an immediate ejection due to her poor sportsmanship, if I was the ump.

Coach and catcher suspended for the remainder of the year. The second one is NOT a softball play.

Great explanation on what could be called here. I never thought about this being a potential malicious contact play because I think of malicious contact involving physical contact in some manner between two plays i.e. collision or excessively hard tag.

Thanks for sharing. The NFHS rule may have good intentions, the normal process of the batter to reset can't be ignored. If the batter takes an exaggerated drop step(s) then maybe you've got interference. Sounds like the way the rule is written NFHS wants to remove umpire judgement from these situations. I agree with Lindsay that this has all the markings of the catcher "trying" to get an interference call. I would be comfortable tossing both F2 and the HC. Looks to me like batters player safety is of no concern to the defense.

UIL put the school district and the athletic director/coach on two years of probation. The coach/athletic director admitted that the same catcher had done the same thing in four other games and they had benefitted from five interference calls. He also admitted that he believed that the catcher hit the batters on purpose though he claimed that what he saw in the video is not how he remembered events during the game.

I saw this a couple days ago - Like you, I thought possible interference on the 1st instance with R3, even though the throw would have had to be the worst throw to actually try and throw to 3rd (didn't even look like a real attempt to throw to 3B), the angle was all wrong, but at least there was someone on 3rd to try and throw out. The 2nd time she does it, there isn't even a play at 3rd. Now, I umpire softball and baseball. With softball, sometimes a catcher will throw down to 3rd if R2 takes a big "half-way to third" type lead instead of running her back (need to remember look-back rule in softball, very different play mechanic than baseball). Here though, the 3B is playing WAY in, so that couldn't be the issue either. Here I think the catcher is malicious/unsportsmanlike and I would have ejected the catcher; what she did was extremely dangerous, throw at the head/face of a player on purpose.

Neither of those throws actually look as if they catcher is aiming for third base, even the first one looked strangely wild, if not deliberate and the second was absolutely malicious/intentional..

You can tell the parents we’re ready to complain if the ump didn’t call it, which means they have been doing it all season. Catcher was asking for the call too.

Looks to me like the coach has spent time telling the catcher that if you just drill the batter you might get an interference call. However the catcher doesn’t quite understand that the play at least has to appear like you are trying to throw out a runner at third. And the batter really needs to be fully out of the box. The first play here is marginal. I don’t think in the first play the catcher was actually trying to throw out the runner at third. I think she was trying to hit the batter. The second play is an ejection for malicious contact. Easy. And a good talking to for the head coach and a report to the league about how this coach is coaching his or her players. That’s not how we want to play softball.

Used to umpirea high school in Los Angeles where they taught the catcher to step into the batter on attempted steals at second. Problem is, we all knew about it. So I have since wondered if they actually LOST OUT on actual Interference calls because of their reputation.

I would have ejected. Also, I'm curious as to whether or not the ball went out of play. I'd love to award R2 home.

Great explanation. Thanks!

Ejection without question.

Hitting someone in the dick should be an automatic ejection. Also, stepping BACKWARD out of the box shouldn't possibly be called interference, or at least should be a subjective decision by the umpires (to be on the safe side) because unless there's something really funky going on with infielder positioning, plunking a batter in the head who has gone a step or two back would mean the ball was thrown in a vector out into the dugout. At that softball game/level it might be a good idea to conference with the coach after that first hit in the head and say "While I understand the rules situation that might merit such a throw that you have coached the player on, if your player chucks it into someone's head that's dangerous and if it happens again I''ll eject her and you" under the 'General Article' of the Umpire having the authority to disqualify any player for unsporting conduct.

The video that I saw on Twitter had the bases-loaded situation second, so I thought that one happened afterward. After the second one (with the runner on second base), the catcher is gone and anyone who says a word about it is gone. If the coach argues it I'm going into full-blown Bob Davidson mode. :)

Man, you'd have to pull me off that catcher if I was the batter.

Seems to be a lot of problems with Texas catchers. Wasn't it in Texas where the catcher elbowed two runners coming home a couple of years ago?

Agree that for the ump, its likely nothing the first time, but an ejection of the catcher and the coach the second time, given the situation. As for beyond the game, this catcher should be off the team and depending on the investigation, perhaps expelled from the school. Coach fired and possibly sued by the parents of the batter. Id love to see a heavy backswing on the catchers head, but this isnt war, its just girls HS softball and there is no place for retribution there.

First one was more than likely enough to warrant the interference call. It had the elements needed. However the second one also had the elements for malicious contact and ejection of catcher and coach.

Partial clarification - the batter interference rule also states the batter cannot interfere, even if staying in the box. In the first case, call an out. In the second case, eject the catcher.

Catcher is playing with fire, and so are the officials by no-calling it. Back in my youth we had a kid slide into our goalie about a half dozen times in a U-12 soccer game. Refs never called anything, so we took matters into our own hands - found him the day after and paid our respects.

This girl should have been ejected and suspended. This is clearly uncalled for and very unsportsmanlike, clearly falls on the coach and maybe even the parents for allowing this kind of behavior in a game.

Hey I got an idea for an interference call, let's throw at the batters face. Genius.😅

We were taught to step out of the box after every pitch. So that rules is very confusing. They are just supposed to stay in the box the whole time so it isn't considered interference? She didn't even attempt to go around or anything. It was too casual as she got up and threw straight at her face.

All I know is that if someone does that intentionally to me and I have a bat. Things are going to become uncomfortable for that catcher.

She clearly has some issues. Get her off the field before someone gets clearly hurt. She knows exactly what she is doing.

There wasn't a play at third the first time either, the runner was clearly slowing before the catcher threw the ball. You can also see her adjust her aim with each throw. Her head begins to look one way, she turns her head slightly to target the batter and lets loose. Even the trajectory of both throws is way off, especially the second one.

After the first attempt and they try it again with no steal attempt or runner at 3rd. It's definitely intentional. Both catcher and coach get to go home early. Found a couple of articles on the situation and neither the catcher nor the coach was ejected. That's pretty damning for the umpire crew for not getting together and discussing what happened especially with player safety involved.

I think Lindsey makes a rare misstatement of a rule, when she says at 1:13, "If the batter stays in the box, you have nothing, but if the batter steps out of the box on a pickoff, by rule, that's interference." That's not really right. The latter half of that statement is right: Stepping out of the box and hindering the throw is interference by rule, but the batter can ALSO interfere without leaving the box. The rule defines interference as "...stepping out of the batter's box [OR] making any movement which hinders action at home after the pitch reaches the catcher..." A batter obviously can't vanish into thin air, but they can be expected to stay still during a play, which is what the rule requires. As with all interference calls, intention is not relevant - though of course it is in a ruling on malicious contact. One other side note: If one draws a line from the catcher to the batter in the video, it appears clear that third base is nowhere near collinear with those two players. If not for the batter, the catcher's throw would sail over the third-base dugout. At least from the angle shown, it's really not credible that F2 was attempting a throw to third, which should definitely figure into any ejection.

If I were coach of the team that was batting, I would be into the opposing coach in an instant after the second throw. That girl could have been seriously injured! And the play in the pro baseball game…as the batter, it would ON!!! That little jerk gets put down. That is not baseball.

Coach has been suspended and team was put on probation for 2 years.

Ejection for the 2nd one when no defensive play was warranted

I think the case could be made that what looked like an aggressive lead off (after the pitch, so it looks like faking to steal simce I think in softball you can't lead off before the pitch is thrown) it seemed to the catcher to look like stealing. But if it really is getting this bad (I don't really watch softball so I don't know of any game play trends) it could be in both baseball and softball to be akin to flopping in basketball. Forcing a mistake by the other team that they didn't commit, and have the offensive team penalized since the defense tricked the official.

The body language of the catcher says it all. If it was indeed an accident, most players would show some sort of "oh crap" emotion. In both occurrences, the the catcher makes no gestures of concern to the batter. Either a total jerk catcher or a total jerk coach - or both!

0:07 OOF! Absolutely DRILLED! Point blank. 2:10 GOD DAMN!

If I were the parents of the hit players I would honestly pursue charges against the catcher. It's seems the intent here was to harm the other player and wasn't close to being a normal softball action. Then sue the coach(for not stepping in and correcting the catcher) and league(because of the inaction of the ump) then finally the school district for failing to provide a safe environment for players and not stopping the harm being caused right away.

In the first case the catcher almost threw the ball into the dug out. Maybe you can make the case that the ball slipped when she saw where the batter is but that is a stretch. At a minimum a warning should have been given. One the second one with no steal and no one covering the base it is a real stretch to say that was not intentional. Immediate ejection for malicious contact.

It's the batters box. The batter does not have to leave the box to accommodate the catchers throw. The catcher has to change position, not the batter.

First instance, warning that the batter is allowed to remain in the box and the throw should be to the fielder. Second onstance, ejection as no genuine throw attempt made, just malicious contact

First one, ok. I can see a no-call there. Second one, catcher and manager are gone. There was no play. There was no chance at a play even if the runner were going. There is now a pattern and you have to shut it down before there's an attempt at retaliation.

Catcher's gotta go for that one in the sixth inning. Deliberate. That, in my honest opinion, is so blatant, that could be a forfeiture offense.

Yes, the first play can prove something. The catcher was not throwing the ball to the third baseman and can easily be seen that she intended to throw the ball at the batter's head. As for the second batter hit, I suspect there is more to this story.

But it's also coached to just stand there by coaches and sending a runner. Everyone forgets the second part of that rule which means you can remain in the box but you must make an attention not to interfer.

Now if the batter hit the catcher with the bat on the follow through, the catcher & coach would be throwing a fit.

My question is why weren't the police called? This is assault with a weapon. Softball. Rock. No difference. Throwing intentionally at the face of someone with the power she threw could have badly injured the batter.

Ejection of the catcher and the coach

The team that the batter who was intentionally struck, needs to do a vigilante justice and teach that piece of 💩 catcher not to intentionally try to hurt people. The more she gets away with that BS, the more she'll think she can get away with it. So, team of the batter, go bust that girl up and protect your teammate!!!!

I just say thank heavens I played softball in the 80's and this type of play was NEVER thought. My daughter played softball in the 90's and 2000's and this play was not in the books. We must be getting more vicious

I do not think it would have been unreasonable if the batter returned the favor with the bat

The second time, I'd eject the catcher and I'd eject the head coach for "intentionally throwing at the batter".

It's hard to tell from the video but it seems malicious if the ball is thrown in the direction of the batter as opposed to the direction of the 3rd bass/fielder (who stepped further into the field of play to catch the expected throw). The batter probably thought they were getting out of the way but the rules make that difficult. I assume it can still be called interference if the catcher has to change their throw (eg. over head) to avoid hitting the batter if the other requirements are met. Surely you could lessen the blow if you know it's going to hit the batter. There's about 10 variations/situations to describe how this rule applies.

I can see the first time is interference but the 2nd time is malicious contact and the catcher should have been tossed from the game!

did anybody hear the audience say “the batters out” after she threw the ball thats crazy sad

Not only should she be ejected but kicked off the team until she gets help.

In the earlier inning, her throw went to the dug out. This was the fourth team of the year the girl did this to, Umpire did not do his job. This Cisco, the offensive team, is ten miles from me. Mccamy is a good town, but the coach needs to be fired.

So if an ejection occurs, it will be the batter because of willful interference--or would you eject the coach too since it was premeditated?

I'm sorry if I'm in the battery's box and then it. Can't your hits me squarely with a ball we scrap in right now

when you look at third base for a total of 3 seconds and hold the ball in the air paused! Knowing the fact that no one is stealing third! and she still hits them with the ball. The 2nd baseman was already heading to second base when that girl threw the ball at her face. The catcher should be banned from softball and contact sports permanently.

Its stuff like this that is the reason why I will never ref kids sports again. Coaches that teach their players to game the officials rather than focusing on playing the game always pissed me off. This is really bad because you can injure someone. Ejecting the catcher and coach on the second play would have been an obvious call and I would warn that team they are on thin ice the rest of the game. 99.99999% of these kids are not going pro or even playing D1. Winning doesn't matter. Just teach them fundamentals and how to be a decent teammate and competitor.

Even if they were trying to pull the interference call, there is no need to throw at the head. If I were the opposing coach, I would have sent a batter up to stand back in the box and take a wide back swing.

Absolutely eject the second time. Agree the first is a borderline and not provable thing.

That catcher would have caught that Bat if you drill me in the face for no reason....

Some are reporting this team did this in the previous game last week.

It looks to me that the catcher was throwing at the batter intentionally. If you look at the direction of the throw and where the catcher is looking, it is at the batter, not the base. My ruling would be ejection of the catcher.

Screw the in game consequences, that was deliberate. A deliberate baseball or softball to the face like that is battery, and I'd argue it's a deadly weapon. This should be charged. If any bones are broken, it becomes aggravated battery. That's 15 years. The DA needs to look at it. If the investigation shows it was coached the coach needs to be charged as well. Even if that doesn't happen I think the catcher needs a lifetime ban. I remember in youth soccer we played a really dirty team once. I was playing back. The ball was on the other end of the field and a guy ran and jumped up and put his elbow into my solar plexus. Five minutes later one of their players broke our goalie's leg. With only one ref for the game both plays were missed, although how you miss a play with the goalie involved is beyond me.

If that was my kid that got drilled in the head for no f-ing reason, I am gonna be pretty heated with that catcher. Unbelievable

She should have been thrown out and arrested

If I'm that girl's dad the opposing teams coach is leaving with a black eye

I don't agree with those who say the first one was interference. The catcher was not throwing to 3rd on either one, and that should matter. I don't know if an ump has the discretion to consider a catcher's intent in these instances? If not, they should.

....I would have been ejected and possibly arrested, my bat confiscated--that catcher would think twice before throwing so violently at someone holding a bat...

Coach should be fired and banned immediately as well as the player. Both were malicious as she took forever to throw the ball bc she was winding up to hit the batter as hard as she could

Kind of wish the offensive players were more heads up about this. Running to first, just get in the lane. Yes, it's a few more inches to run, but if they try to hit you with the ball, they're giving you a base. For the "throws to third", take a few quick hop steps backward toward the dugout. If they still hit you when you're that far out of the path to potentially throw a runner out, it's going to be obvious and lead to an ejection. Draw the call, as it were.

Even if the runner was running from second to third, I wouldn’t have interference cause a batter was going backwards in the catcher was going forward

My favorite HS softball one is the catcher thaw as salty they were losing so was elbowing runners at the plate and nothing happened to her until after the game was over and UIL investigated. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mVFsoLgu4cg.html For reference this was the state game for I think 4a?