[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Quote:
...Most umpires in upper level ball understand the use of the "Ball; no he didn't go" mechanic as indicative that their PU partner had a clear look at the check and made a decision that the batter did not offer. In those circumstances crews at that level trust the umpire who is 100 feet closer to the play to have the better view, and never overrule that call.
OTOH, if the PU is unsighted or simply calls "Ball" only, then the BU should feel entitled to offer the next best opinion on the check attempt when questioned.
That "understanding" has become traditional among most umpires at the upper levels of the game. The 1976 Note, appended following 9.02(c), is a hangover from the days when umpires believed that the bat head breaking the plane of the plate was the single best criterion for judging a swing. NAPBL/PBUC 1.12 shows that more modern thinking has clearly superceded that with pure umpire judgement on the offer. Most now accept that unless the PU was unsighted, he is clearly in the best position to see any attempt to offer or check.
Hope this helps
Cheers
|
Warren;
You analysis is correct for games played prior to the mid '90's in America. Around that time, there was a big push to eliminate this "code" communication between the PU and the BU. In NCAA, we are now emphatically instructed NOT to engage in any type of code communication with our partners over the check swing.
The coaches aren't dummies. They pick up the communication and then use it against us. Therefore, all checks are now done in the same way regardless of what view the PU thinks he had of the play. The only exception is the dropped strike three and then the PU checks immediately before being asked.
I submitted an article on this problem to Carl about two weeks ago. Our Great Leader must have seen this thread because he just posted the article.
Peter
[Edited by His High Holiness on Jul 16th, 2003 at 08:56 AM]