Awkward strikeout

David Emerling · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 29, 2004, 10:04pm

The rules discuss how runners have to beware that their status can suddenly change with an appeal of a checked swing.

A portion of OBR 9.02(c) says:
Baserunners must be alert to the possibility that the base umpire on appeal from the plate umpire may reverse the call of a ball to the call of a strike, in which event the runner is in jeopardy of being out by the catcher's throw. Also, a catcher must be alert in a base stealing situation if a ball call is reversed to a strike by the base umpire upon appeal from the plate umpire. The ball is in play on appeal on a half swing.

Naturally, catchers have to be aware of this also.

So, when there is a check swing with a runner on 1st the catcher should FIRST address any activity by the runners prior to wasting time with asking the PU for an appeal. The catcher can't allow R1 to trot down to 2nd while having a discussion with the umpires.

Having said that, consider the following:

OBR. 2-man umpire crew.

R1. Count of 3-1. Check swing, PU does not call the pitch a strike. R1 thinks that the batter has walked so he starts trotting down to 2nd. Instead of appealing, the catcher rifles the ball down to 2nd and a rundown ensues.

What is the BU supposed to do? The PU just called the pitch a ball. What if the BU is of the opinion that it was a strike ... but he hasn't been asked yet?

Very awkward.

F6 tags R1. The BU rules him safe - right? Afterall, the batter walked and R1 is awarded 2nd. You signal safe - even though you are of the opinion that the batter did swing - although you haven't been asked yet. So, while R1 continues to 2nd (after having been tagged), the defense then appeals the swing. Can they do that? So you rule it a strike. Is R1 retroactively out?

Opinions ...

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

DG · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 29, 2004, 11:25pm

Covered in PBUC 1.13 Checked Swings. BU should call nothing on the tag of R1 by F6 since B1 walked. If asked for appeal then BU will rule on appeal. If a strike then he should then rule R1 out if he was tagged by F6 before reaching 2B. The only difference between the post play and the example given under PBUC 1.13 was that R1 was stealing on the pitch in the 1.13 example.

Gee · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 30, 2004, 06:53am

Proper mechanics by the PU alleviates that problem. The proper mechanic on any checked swing that is called a ball and puts a runner or B/R at risk, the PU should immediately and unilaterally go to his partner for help.

On a checked swing appeal, a play or an attempted play will not cancel the appeal.

David Emerling · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 30, 2004, 07:05am

Quote:

Originally posted by Gee
Proper mechanics by the PU alleviates that problem. The proper mechanic on any checked swing that is called a ball and puts a runner or B/R at risk, the PU should immediately and unilaterally go to his partner for help.

On a checked swing appeal, a play or an attempted play will not cancel the appeal.

Agreed! In my area, I don't think I could count on one hand how many umpires would do that ... sadly.

Do you think it would be appropriate to rule it a strike without being asked by the PU in this situation?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Gee · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 30, 2004, 07:22am

"SNIP"

"Do you think it would be appropriate to rule it a strike without being asked by the PU in this situation?"
--------------------------------------------------

Yes. It is standard practice in MLB. Don't confuse it with the catchers interference ruling where the manager MUST ask for the option.

The checked swing unilateral appeal is important as it corrects thorny situations, like the one we are discussing, before they happen. Spread the word in your area. G.

Addendum:

Just checked J/R and he does recommend the unilateral appeal under Checked Swings on page 112 in my old copy. G.

[Edited by Gee on Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:30 AM]

ChapJim · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 01, 2004, 06:54am

"Do you think it would be appropriate to rule it a strike without being asked by the PU in this situation?"
--------------------------------------------------

Yes. It is standard practice in MLB. Don't confuse it with the catchers interference ruling where the manager MUST ask for the option.

Wait a minute! You want BUs to call strikes without being asked by PU? Is that what you mean by "unilateral appeal?"

I agree with PUs asking for help in the situations described but totally disagree with PUs inserting themselves into the mix without being asked.

Gee · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 01, 2004, 07:31am

Your right, I missed his wording of BU vs PU.

In my original post I said:

"Proper mechanics by the PU alleviates that problem. The proper mechanic on any checked swing that is called a ball and puts a runner or B/R at risk, the PU should immediately and unilaterally go to his partner for help.

Why he switched PU to BU, I don't know, I just missed it. G

[Edited by Gee on Nov 1st, 2004 at 07:53 AM]

ozzy6900 · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 01, 2004, 07:53am

Yes, the play is covered under PBUC 1.13 Checked Swings, and the J/R says the BU should make the call on the checked swing. Now if everyone spent the couple of bucks to get some of these fine books, we would all be better off, or would we?!?

So, your partner didn't read the material (and most do not) so what now? The best medicine is to go with the PBUC's version. It "keeps the PU in control" and forces the defense to do their jobs (make an appeal). I understand that MLB is doing it according to the J/R but MLB also works 4 man crews on a regular basis. MLB and the WUA also discuss a lot of these "changes" so everyone is aware of them. Imagine the house of defecation that would ensue in a babe Ruth game if the BU came up with that call without being asked!

jicecone · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 01, 2004, 09:01am

This is why it is so important that the PU immeadiately ask for help or declare , "No he didn't go".The scenario used in this thread would have easily been handled if the proper mechanics are adhered to. The rhubarb afterwards would be a result of not properly handling the situation to begin with.

NEVER, should the BU offer his opinion on a checked swing, unless asked.

DG · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 01, 2004, 09:37pm

I don't see a need for the offense to have an immediate answer to the question of whether the batter swung or not, in the example play given. If R1 will stick around 1B long enough the answer will come, there is no rush to go to 2B on the walk, and he can surely see that there might be some question about whether he swung or not, since he checked his swing (or did he?). There is also no immediate need for the defense to know either. If R1 wanders off 1B, or is stealing on the pitch, the catcher should throw him out, and then appeal the swing.

I don't see this mechanic mentioned in the PBUC Manual for the Two Man System and I don't have a J/R, nor do I work MLB. So, I think I will continue to wait until PU asks about a checked swing before I give an answer from the bases.

ozzy6900 · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 02, 2004, 07:27am

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
I don't see a need for the offense to have an immediate answer to the question of whether the batter swung or not, in the example play given. If R1 will stick around 1B long enough the answer will come, there is no rush to go to 2B on the walk, and he can surely see that there might be some question about whether he swung or not, since he checked his swing (or did he?). There is also no immediate need for the defense to know either. If R1 wanders off 1B, or is stealing on the pitch, the catcher should throw him out, and then appeal the swing.

I don't see this mechanic mentioned in the PBUC Manual for the Two Man System and I don't have a J/R, nor do I work MLB. So, I think I will continue to wait until PU asks about a checked swing before I give an answer from the bases.

The reason that both sides need an immediate answer is that without one, you usually get into a full blown shi$house! The defense is going to make a play on R1 - that's their job. R1 is going to head to 2nd because with a 3-1 count, the PU never rang up strike 3 - and that's R1's job. Letting the players know where they stand is our job.

jprideaux · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 02, 2004, 10:04am

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900

The reason that both sides need an immediate answer is that without one, you usually get into a full blown shi$house! The defense is going to make a play on R1 - that's their job. R1 is going to head to 2nd because with a 3-1 count, the PU never rang up strike 3 - and that's R1's job. Letting the players know where they stand is our job.

Especially if F2 throws the ball into centerfield on ball 4!

DG · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 02, 2004, 07:56pm

[/B][/QUOTE]
The reason that both sides need an immediate answer is that without one, you usually get into a full blown shi$house! The defense is going to make a play on R1 - that's their job. R1 is going to head to 2nd because with a 3-1 count, the PU never rang up strike 3 - and that's R1's job. Letting the players know where they stand is our job. [/B][/QUOTE]

I would not expect the PU to ring up strike 3 on a 3-1 count. Also, R1 must suspect that there might be a check swing appeal since he saw the same thing I did, and there is no rush to go to 2B. I don't see it as my job to let them know where they stand until PU asks me if I saw a swing.

David Emerling · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 02, 2004, 09:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
I would not expect the PU to ring up strike 3 on a 3-1 count. Also, R1 must suspect that there might be a check swing appeal since he saw the same thing I did, and there is no rush to go to 2B. I don't see it as my job to let them know where they stand until PU asks me if I saw a swing.

That is partially my fault. As the originator of this thread, I was originally intending to the make the count 3-2 on the batter, ergo the thread title, "Awkward strikeout".

I then decided to make the count 3-1 so as to not needlessly complicate the scenario by dealing with a strikeout ... which was not the point of the post. But I forgot to change the title of the thread to agree with the scenario.

The issues remain unchanged, however.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David Emerling · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Nov 02, 2004, 09:47pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
I would not expect the PU to ring up strike 3 on a 3-1 count. Also, R1 must suspect that there might be a check swing appeal since he saw the same thing I did, and there is no rush to go to 2B. I don't see it as my job to let them know where they stand until PU asks me if I saw a swing.

Maybe this should be a new topic; however -

As the BU, have you ever called a batter out on, what COULD have been, an uncaught third strike?

In other words, the batter swings at a pitch in the dirt for strike three and you, as the BU, can clearly see that the catcher caught the ball. That may not be so evident to the PU. So, instead of allowing all hell to break loose, you bellow out, "Batter's out!"

The PU has already signaled the strike - so there's no question about whether the batter went or not. But, it may not be very apparent that the PU is convinced that the ball was caught by the catcher. So, the BU preempts any confusion by "unilaterally" supplying the critical information ... "Batter's out!"

I've done that before and I'm wondering if I should be doing that. What do you think?

Or, as in the current discussion - should I wait for my partner to ask me?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Nov 4th, 2004 at 03:52 PM]