No more than firing a 100 MPH slapshot at a goalie’s head is assault with a deadly weapon. It’s an assumed risk of the game.
Your conclusion is ridiculous. I’m sure at some point the prosecutor made mention that the person hit by the scale had a reasonable expectation of not being hit by something thrown at him. Baseball batters enter the batters box with the expectation that the chance of getting hit by a fastball is extremely high - that’s why they wear helmets. If the guy hit by the scale had been wearing a helmet and told the jury “yeah - I put a helmet on because my drug dealer friend has a habit of throwing things around” the car would have been tossed out of court.
Unintentionally being hit is assumed. There’s absolutely no reason to allow intentionally being hit as an assumption. That’s a rational decision we can make.
If you were walking down the street and someone intentionally aimed a fastball at you at 100 mph that would be assault even if it didn’t hit because AFAIK in most places assault is the intent or threat. I see no reason why intentionally aiming at someone in the context of a game should be different.
Actually hitting them, on the other hand, might be battery in some places, but that is where I’d draw the line because otherwise no baseball would be played if you risked a negligent battery charge every time you threw a pitch.
So assuming, counterfactually, that you know that the pitcher was aiming at the player. Throw the book at them, not necessarily legally, but game-wise. There should be a penalty for crowding the plate to make up for it.
We already have rules for intentionally hitting a batter. There are bench warnings, and ejections, and other penalties. And it works, for the most part. The extremely rare flare up isn’t so damaging as to fundamentally change the character of the game by over reacting with draconian penalties.
Batters will always get hit by pitches. Determining if they are intentional or accidental is going to be problematic in a game where the majority of players are OK with balls and strikes being decided by imprecise means. There are a few obvious cases where everyone is aware what is happening, and those are adequately taken care of with the current rules. Most players just shrug and shake it off on their trot to first base. Most pitchers are trying to avoid hitting batters. Just like most batters feel awful if their line drive catches a pitcher in the head.
Courts, in the ruling mentioned in the link above, disagree. It’s an assumed risk of the game. There can be exceptions, but in general it’s hard to overcome that hurdle. You could say the same about a late hit in football, or a cross check in hockey, or a rabbit punch in boxing.
It was one of dozens of charges, and who knows, it might not have stuck in the trial. I voted not to indict on that charge, because
- I didn’t think the scale was a deadly weapon
- I didn’t think the thrower had any intention of hitting the throwee, I thought the intention was to damage the property and upset the other guy.
But no, given the circumstances, I don’t think the owner of the scale had a reasonable expectation that the scale wouldn’t be thrown in his direction, and the prosecutor never brought that up.
So I voted “no”, because I didn’t think the prosecutor made the case that it was more likely than not that it was assault. That being said, if the scale was a deadly weapon, a baseball going 80mph sure as hell is a deadly weapon.
I find it shocking to learn that pitchers are hitting batters 1% of the time. That seems like convincing evidence that there’s a problem. Yes, if you know the pitcher did it on purpose, throw the book at him. But intent is always hard to prove. And I think pitchers should be trying harder to throw clean, and not hit the batter. They are incredibly talented, and have a lot of control over what they are doing.
If it were happening a couple times a season, I’d say, “hey, there’s risk in this game, as in all games”. But apparently it’s happening all the frigging time. So the currently penalty is grossly inadequate, and needs to be beefed up until it becomes a very rare event.
People also think the electoral college should remain too because “it’s always been done that way”. My argument is not that it should be illegal, but that something that would be illegal in any other context is treated so lightly in the game.
The court was ruling on whether under the current circumstances and the state of the law liability could be imposed on a certain party. The court didn’t say that the league couldn’t decide to punish someone, or change the rules, or that a contract couldn’t be amended to make someone pay fines, or many other things.
I’m not arguing that it isn’t. I don’t think a single person in this thread is arguing that. I’m arguing it’s not assault without intent, and it’s likely not assault if there’s a reasonable expectation of being hit. Otherwise, boxers would get arrested every time they enter the ring.
The batters have their own part to play here as well. They choose how close to the plate they stand. The pitcher is trying to throw over the plate, if the batter stays close to the plate, they are more likely to get hit if the pitcher is a bit off.
Batters have a habit of edging closer to the plate, as they are more effective if they do so. If the pitcher is held solely responsible for a hit batter, to an extreme level, batters will be more bold in encroaching on the plate.
It’s a tricky balance, to keep players safe from attack but not embolden those same players to take unfair advantage of safety measures.
If there was a fool proof way establishing intent, I would be fine with harsher penalties. Hell, ban them for life. But there isn’t. So, if the Ump says it was intentional under current rules, and was wrong about it, no serious harm done.
As for the talents of pitchers, I’ve seen many a baseball hit the ground short of home plate. I’ve seen many pitches two or three feet above the catcher. I’ve seen some so far outside that no one would ever be fooled. None of these things are done on purpose, and I’m sure most pitchers don’t intend to hit a batter.
Of the 14 unwritten rules on wikipedia only 1 is inarguably about not being an asshole. Most of them are complete bullshit.
I agree that the ones about not trying to do your best to win are bullshit. However, some are about courtesy (not walking in front of the catcher and umpire, a pitcher staying in the dugout after being removed) or are superstition (not talking to a pitcher about a no-hitter in progress). I don’t see a problem with those.
Glad I wasn’t talking about that, which is pretty clearly conveyed by the word “intentionally”.
A batter’s valid position is within the batter’s box. So long as a batter is in the batter’s box, there’s no “encroachment.”
Am I missing something here? That’s a hit batsman every 10 at bats, not 100. So around 3 HBP per team per game. One of your two figures is off or I’m waaaaay drunker than I thought I was.
From the link.
The Chicago White Sox took issue with his brushback pitches, leading to a brawl between Ryan and Robin Ventura after Ryan threw at Ventura during a game in 1993.
That’s the only time a player got six hits in a row off Ryan.
From here, MLB teams had between 6000-7000 plate appearances each, so the first figure is going to be about 196,000, not 19,600. There’s certainly not an average of 3 HBP per game.
Okay. That makes more sense. RickJay was missing a zero. Thanks!