The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 20, 2007, 11:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
I explain what I believe constitutes a check swing. I simply look for the hands getting out in front of the body, and that is how I expect them to determine it.
The part of your quote I've put in boldface is where you're in trouble. Nobody on this board is going to agree with you that there's EVER a time when you can legitimately demand that your partner interpret something the way YOU tell him to interpret it.

The judgment to be made is did the batter successfully check his swing. One man's guideline is the next man's "really silly way to try to determine a check swing."
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 20, 2007, 11:10pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
If I am working plate I will always cover in pre-game that I never deny a check swing request, so be ready, and give me what you got because if I missed a strike I want it back.

In the batter is trying to get away from the ball I call a ball.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 12:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 543
There seem to be a lot of different ways people like calling the checked swing. Is there one way that is universally accepted and practiced amongst umpires?
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 12:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,772
short answer

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
There seem to be a lot of different ways people like calling the checked swing. Is there one way that is universally accepted and practiced amongst umpires?
No.

Thanks
David
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 01:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
There seem to be a lot of different ways people like calling the checked swing. Is there one way that is universally accepted and practiced amongst umpires?

Yes.



You're welcome.

Edited to add: Perhaps, once again, I was being too literal. My "yes" answer is to your question of whether there is an accepted way to CALL a checked (half) swing. If you are asking whether or not there is a universal method for the BU to detemine whether or not the batter "went", then no, as apparent by this thread.
__________________
GB

Last edited by GarthB; Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:47am.
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 01:55am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
I explain what I believe constitutes a check swing. I simply look for the hands getting out in front of the body, and that is how I expect them to determine it.

If I go to my partner for help, I expect help. I don't need him to agree with my initial call. I would have never made college ball working that way.

The reason I even brought it up is because so many guys have really silly ways about trying to determine a check swing. For me, where the barrel of the bat winds up isn't as important as where the hands went! Once the hands get out away from the body, in my mind, that is an offer at the pitch. It is also the easiest way to come up with a standard if you will for consistently call check swings! I think consistency in what appears to happen is the most important thing in check swings, and the BU will be very consistent calling it with that standard.
Frankly, I think your way of determining a check swing sucks, and if you tried to tell me how to call a check swing during our pre-game, I'd tell you to have fun calling the game by yourself, and leave.

Check swings do not fall into consistent categories, and should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and the determining factor should always be "did the batter offer at the pitch, or was he successful in checking his swing by not offering." That's the crux of the issue.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 02:59am
rei
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
And you are likely someone who would be working the bases if I was your partner.
Probably not. I can piss a long ways!
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 03:00am
rei
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hensley
The part of your quote I've put in boldface is where you're in trouble. Nobody on this board is going to agree with you that there's EVER a time when you can legitimately demand that your partner interpret something the way YOU tell him to interpret it.

The judgment to be made is did the batter successfully check his swing. One man's guideline is the next man's "really silly way to try to determine a check swing."
How long have you umpired?
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 03:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
I would have never made college ball working that way.
You made it to college ball? But not as an umpire right?
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 04:21am
rei
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
You made it to college ball? But not as an umpire right?
I am sorry, I don't understand your question. I have already identified myself as an umpire, and maybe I assumed wrongly that making a statement like "made it to college ball" on an umpires forum would stipulate that I umpire college games. I have never stated anything about being a coach or player.

Is there something I have missed here in your question? Does it have something to do with check swings?

Last edited by rei; Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 04:23am.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 06:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
Frankly, I think your way of determining a check swing sucks, and if you tried to tell me how to call a check swing during our pre-game, I'd tell you to have fun calling the game by yourself, and leave.

Check swings do not fall into consistent categories, and should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and the determining factor should always be "did the batter offer at the pitch, or was he successful in checking his swing by not offering." That's the crux of the issue.
1. The method advocated by rei has been taught at several NCAA level camps I have attended. You may think that it "sucks" if you'd like, but it is one that is used by many at that level. The method I learned from Evans was to judge by the motion of the body, not the bat. I'm sure that "sucks", too.

2. I know rei. I know he has not exaggerated the level of ball he works.

3. I am highly amused reading posts attempting to correct or educate rei written by some who have not and will not reach the level he works.

4. I am equally amused by some who have posted elsewhere, "If I go to my partner right away, he gives me what he has, but if I hesitate or repeat my call, he damn well better give me what I have"; but now insist they would never expect a certain response.

5. Welcome aboard, rei.
__________________
GB
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 08:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
I explain what I believe constitutes a check swing. I simply look for the hands getting out in front of the body, and that is how I expect them to determine it.

If I go to my partner for help, I expect help. I don't need him to agree with my initial call. I would have never made college ball working that way.

The reason I even brought it up is because so many guys have really silly ways about trying to determine a check swing. For me, where the barrel of the bat winds up isn't as important as where the hands went! Once the hands get out away from the body, in my mind, that is an offer at the pitch. It is also the easiest way to come up with a standard if you will for consistently call check swings! I think consistency in what appears to happen is the most important thing in check swings, and the BU will be very consistent calling it with that standard.
Why is there so much yammering about this? REI is absolutely correct in "training" his partners this way. Many of you would do well with paying attention to this advice because you are probably still calling strikes because the barrel of the bat is here or there or somewhere! An umpire must conclude that the batter did indeed offer at the pitch!

Nice explanation REI and welcome!

Regards
Ozzy
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 08:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
1. The method advocated by rei has been taught at several NCAA level camps I have attended. You may think that it "sucks" if you'd like, but it is one that is used by many at that level. The method I learned from Evans was to judge by the motion of the body, not the bat. I'm sure that "sucks", too.

2. I know rei. I know he has not exaggerated the level of ball he works.

3. I am highly amused reading posts attempting to correct or educate rei written by some who have not and will not reach the level he works.

4. I am equally amused by some who have posted elsewhere, "If I go to my partner right away, he gives me what he has, but if I hesitate or repeat my call, he damn well better give me what I have"; but now insist they would never expect a certain response.

5. Welcome aboard, rei.
So Garth, are you endorsing rei's practice of telling his partners how he expects them to judge whether a batter checked a swing?
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 08:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
How long have you umpired?
Approximately 15 years, but that's beside the point of what I said. What I said is nobody on this board would support your statement that you tell your partner how to judge a check swing. With one possible exception (Garth seems to be offering support without an explicit endorsement of that statement) I have accurately described the reaction to your statement from those posting here.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 08:19am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
1. The method advocated by rei has been taught at several NCAA level camps I have attended. You may think that it "sucks" if you'd like, but it is one that is used by many at that level. The method I learned from Evans was to judge by the motion of the body, not the bat. I'm sure that "sucks", too.

2. I know rei. I know he has not exaggerated the level of ball he works.

3. I am highly amused reading posts attempting to correct or educate rei written by some who have not and will not reach the level he works.

4. I am equally amused by some who have posted elsewhere, "If I go to my partner right away, he gives me what he has, but if I hesitate or repeat my call, he damn well better give me what I have"; but now insist they would never expect a certain response.

5. Welcome aboard, rei.
That's all well and good, but why would someone come on board and be so, well, inflammatory?

And frankly, who cares? If a coach/catcher asks for an appeal, I go to my partner. If he rings it up, I change the indicator accordingly. It's a freaking strike. If I have a weak partner and he clearly kicks a call at first, do I run in and save the day? And hell, that's an OUT we're talking about.

I'm happy you can vouch for his experience and the level of ball he works. Good on him. I won't ever work (or aspire to work as long as I live in the hinterlands of baseball) at a level where I can say I work "at a level" so that doesn't matter much to me.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NCAA Checked Swing - Curious Rich Ives Baseball 6 Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:39pm
Can checked swing be a 'fourth out' appeal? Snorg Baseball 38 Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:52pm
Red Sox/Yankees-checked swing. Gee Baseball 15 Wed Oct 20, 2004 08:59am
checked swing removing a walk DaveASA/FED Softball 12 Thu Jun 26, 2003 09:57pm
Checked Swing - 4th out appeal? 2 situations BJ Moose Baseball 4 Tue Jan 16, 2001 04:39pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1