|
kb [/B][/QUOTE]
Is it only me or does anyone else see a problem here?
The appeal comes from the catcher, if we make our own appeal when the ball is at the backstop I'd venture to say that most catchers would say they don't want an appeal, they're happy with the ball. Let's leave some room for gamesmanship and quick thinking by the players. The runner has the option to run to first. If he makes it I bet the catcher doesn't doesn't ask for an apppeal. If the batter stands there like a bump on a log let the catcher utilize his right for an appeal once he's recovered the ball.
In this sitch both players screwed up, one swung and missed the other missed the ball, we should not be changing our mechanics to help either side. In this case the advantage should go to the smartest player. [/B][/QUOTE]
In the example provided in the CBUA Membership Handbook:
Example: With first base unoccupied and a 3-2 count, the batter checks his swing and the ball eludes the catcher. If the first base umpire intended to call a strike on appeal from the plate umpire, the first base umpire may make the call immediately.
There are few coaches (on def) who would, on a 3-2 count, not appeal a checked swing....they want the 3rd strike, even if the pitch eludes F2. So if "on appeal" the BU would have called a strike, the mechanic is for him to call the strike without being asked. This would allow the batter a chance to run to 1B, this also lets F2 know that he has to tag the batter or throw to 1B for the out.
This mechanic isn't only for the benefit of F2, he already knows that he missed the pitch, so he pops up and tags the batter or throws to 1B. But as far as the batter knows it was ball 4 and he gets a walk to 1B. How could he possibly know that it was a strike and that he should be running to 1B?
Personally, I like this mechanic.
|