Is bailing a checked swing?

[Dave Hensley]

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."

[DG]

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.

[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?

[David B]

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

[GarthB]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

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!

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?

[Justme]

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?

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?

[GarthB]

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.

[ozzy6900]

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

[Dave Hensley]

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?

[Dave Hensley]

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.

[Rich]

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.