When batters charge the mound, why don't they bring the BAT with them? Makes sense to me.

Fellow inmate wrote:

ESPN's top 10 baseball fights for your delectation:

http://videosift.com/video/ESPNs-Top-10-Baseball-Fights

#4 is pretty amazing. Kick the catcher then go after the pitcher.

Players have been charged. The Detroit Tigers had someone in the middle 1980s who couldn't go to one of the towns because there was a warrant out for him (can't remember who it was for the life of me).

Jeff Weaver was not liked by his teammates and when a hit batsman charged him none of his teammates defended him, so if don't automatically assume your teammates will come to your defense. Beating someone with a bat is very unmanly. Some players think charging the mound just shows your fear in the first place.

I remember Al Kaline getting knocked down by pitches several times, and he would hit the next pitch right up the pitcher's box, usually for a single. Revenge is the best reward in cases like that. Hall of famer Kaline has stated publicly that he does not believe in charging the mound anyway.

Bert Campanaris of the Oakland A's threw his bat at Lerrin Legrow back in 1972, I think, missing Legrow's head by an inch or two. Campy was suspended from baseball for the rest of the season.

Can't remember who it was, but also in the early 70s a hockey player went on trial in court and faced prison time for using his stick on a player, which was deemed, "using a deadly weapon." Again, I'm old and cannot remember who the player was. But I remember it at the time.

In the traditional, manly sense, men go after each other with their bare hands.

Criminal prosecution of athletes for on-the-field conduct are pretty rare, but there is a body of case law on the subject. I do remember the Dino Ciccarelli case back in the 80s, the first NHL player to go to jail for an on-the-ice incident. Typically it comes down to weighing the merits of the case: assumed liability of danger and violent acts is often cited, but depending on the severity of the incident, the prosecution would look at the expense of the trial, likelihood of success on the merits, and the availability of a civil remedy for the victim.

King of Double Dutch wrote:

In the traditional, manly sense, men go after each other with their bare hands.

Dude, to each his own, but please keep your desires and fetishes off the boards.

Wasn't actually referring to myself, but to professional athletes. I'm more of a lover than a fighter. So there you have it. But feel free to fantasize about me if you must. Whatever floats yer boat. I won't judge.

jd macelroy wrote:

Criminal prosecution of athletes for on-the-field conduct are pretty rare, but there is a body of case law on the subject. I do remember the Dino Ciccarelli case back in the 80s, the first NHL player to go to jail for an on-the-ice incident. Typically it comes down to weighing the merits of the case: assumed liability of danger and violent acts is often cited, but depending on the severity of the incident, the prosecution would look at the expense of the trial, likelihood of success on the merits, and the availability of a civil remedy for the victim.

I like how you talk.

A pitcher who beans a batter should automatically go to prison. The batter should do a Tanya Hardind on that coward punk pitcher, and it would be self defense.

mondrian wrote:

A pitcher who beans a batter should automatically go to prison. The batter should do a Tanya Hardind on that coward punk pitcher, and it would be self defense.

It's not that simple. Some batters crowd the plate. Brushback pitches are an appropriate response. It's not coach pitch. Especially in the past with pitchers like Drysdale and Bob Gibson, etc. throwing high and inside was just standard practice. Also, some pitchers also just have poor control or have pitches get away from them.

And, of course, some pitchers throw beanballs, which I wouldn't defend, but the line between a legitimate pitch, a mistake, and an intentional beanball can be pretty gray.

Intentional brushback or beaning should result in prison and an asswhupping. It is that simple, it is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

mondrian wrote:

Intentional brushback or beaning should result in prison and an asswhupping. It is that simple, it is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Have you ever even seen a baseball game? I hate think what your opinion of football would be.

It doesn't seem to be so hard to prove intent. The criminal roger clemins usually meant it when he hit a batter. Where does this sense of entitlement come from where a pitcher tries to injure a batter who hits a home run? That is the batter's job, and if the pitcher doesn't want it to happen or is angry about it, is assault the appropriate response?

The inside of the plate belongs to the pitcher. It's that simple.

You could always like Barry Bonds, wear hard, protective guards on your arms and then just lean out over the plate and complain when pitchers hit you.

The Big Unit hit a few batters, but he had control problems and I don't remember him ever hitting anyone on purpose.

That being said, batters do get hit on purpose at times, but almost no one gets beaned in the head.

Boston's Tony Coniglliaro in 1967 is one example, but the pitcher swore up and down it was not intentional. Coniglliaro missed a year of playing and wasn't even close to the very good player he was before getting beaned. I think he also had double vision for the rest of his life. He's been dead for a while now.

Ray Chapman was killed in 1920 (no one wore helmets then) by a fastball to the temple. As far as I know that's the only death from a beanball.

Retaliation for a home run is cowardly and criminal. There is no rule against crowding the plate. there is a rule about throwing at ar hitting a batter. If a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, the response should be the batter taking a swing at the pitcher's arm in self defense, then the pitcher going to jail for assault.

If the batter "takes a swing at the pitcher's arm" in retaliation (that is not self defense), shouldn't they both go to jail?

No, because he is trying to prevent the pitcher from assaulting him again. I guess that it depends on the time frame.

Clam Evans wrote:The hockey player Steve Bertuzzi was arrested for an in-game punch in 2004 because of how brutal it was.

Todd Bertuzzi punched Steve Moore.

Thicket wrote:

Retaliation for a home run is cowardly and criminal. There is no rule against crowding the plate. there is a rule about throwing at ar hitting a batter. If a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, the response should be the batter taking a swing at the pitcher's arm in self defense, then the pitcher going to jail for assault.

Retaliation for a homerun is chickensh*t, I agree. The rest your post is nonsense. If you crowd the plate or get in the strike zone you deserve to get brushed back. That's part of the game of baseball. If a batter doesn't like like real baseball you shouldn't play the game.

There are also plenty of players like Don Baylor, Craig Biggio, etc. who intentionally get HBP to get on base - and Baylor didn't wear all the crap on his arm that Biggio did. It's just part of the game.

For fun-

that's assault brother

So, if someone is running in the lane next to you, close to the line, and you feel that he might beat you, then it is OK to trip him. You are breaking the rules, he isn't, but what the heck, that is part of the game and you'll do what you want.