The NCAA is the only code that has directly written how a check swing is to be determined. If you are talking solely about college baseball, then yes, you should expect your partner to use the NCAA's guideline in this area.

FWIW, I find the NCAA's guideline to be quite reasonable and it encourages consistency. However, I still don't think that it means I should "agree" with the PU in that situation. There are occasions where angle is better than distance and sometimes the PU is just too damned close (or gets blocked) to make a reasonable judgment on the check swing.

Besides, who gets the heat if I ring one up and it's not really an offer? Not you, the plate umpire.

In my world there are still coaches that piss and whine about umpires calling strike from the inside of the diamond. It's easy to turn off the ears in that situation. I simply don't care if the coaches like those calls or not.

I have no clue what this means, but if I did I'd probably find it funny. If you come back, let me know.

I agree, the method of determining the "called strike" is what I've also read and been taught; however, for me to try and determine for someone else what is a called strike, that's not a very good approach IMO.

Even at the college level, I've seen umpires who either are very strict or very literal in their approach toward the checked swing. The bottom line is that it is determined by the individual.

At the HS level its even more varied as you have veteran and beginning umpires.

Based on experience, training, etc., that will vary widely.

Thansk
David

When in Rome...

But surely he should not be advocating the NCAA rules at lower levels, and surely he doesn't have "weak partners" at higher levels ... so what gives?

There ARE 'weaker' umpires in all levels of college ball, when compared to the 'better' (more experienced) college umpires. But even way back when, I would not get along with a PU who asked (told) me to call check swings his way, as one poster suggested here. You follow, to the best of your ability, the guidelines (or requirements) of the league and/or association you work for.

When you come on a board with the attitude that I work (or worked) college or professional ball (MiLB or MLB) therefore I know it all and I am a better umpire than you, you can expect to meet some resistance.

I cannot imagine a scenario where the PU would refuse to honor a check-swing appeal, for the outcome can only be favorable to him.


1. the BU says, "no swing," and your original judgement is validated.

-or-

2. the BU calls, "Strike!". You are one strike closer to beer-thirty, and any heat over the changed call is now on your partner.

It's a win-win, or at least a win-draw, from behind the plate. :)

No one asks for an appeal when the batter doesnt get the bat off his shoulder, so I still don't understand that aspect of the OP.


If some of the old salts here know of a scenario where the PU would NOT want to hear a check-swing appeal, I would appreciate hearing about it. Seriously. Maybe I'm missing something.

I think some here have misread rei's post. He didn't say he would tell his partners what to say, or what "give him" when he comes to them. That remains their judgment. What he said was when working with "weaker" partners, (and since rie continues to work HS, I take this as meaning inexperienced partners) he provides a method to help them determine if the half swing was an offer or not.

I have no problem mentoring inexperienced umpires by teaching them a technique. If they decide, down the road, when they have more experience, to choose a different method, that's fine, but teaching them a particular method is appropriate.

I see no reason for anyone on this board to take affront at this. Most here, including you, Dave, would be recognized by rei as not needing such instruction. Littleboyblue and dannyboy would benefit from it.

Thank you for the tropical welcome Garth. :)

I think the above post explains my position. I am encouraged that you followed what I have posted so far, understood it, and offered your take on my behalf to those that seem to have misunderstood where I am coming from.

I am looking around, but still can't find the queen bee! ;)

No real queen here. Some pretenders, lots of workers and more than our share of drones.

He didn't come on the board "so, well, inflammatory." He came on the board offering a method he uses to teach less experienced umpires.

This was then greeted with hoots, hollers and holier than thou proclamations, most of which did not even address his point.

Being able to judge posters only by their accusations and apparent inability to understand what he posted, he responded.

Pretty basic Internet stuff.

Every other sport I have worked, it is quite acceptable for a senior official, who is the crew chief that day, to advise to his crew on that day how he would like certain actions to be judged and called for that game.

I have never had a partner become offended by this practice in baseball. No feedback has ever gotten back to me via the "long way around" about this practice. On the contrary, most of my "weaker" partners have expressed gracious statements for sharing this "gem" with them, and after the game told me how much more confident they were in making a check swing determination!

If you are an old hat, unless you specifically asked me about this, I would certainly not cover it in a pre-game. If you did ask me about this, I would explain how I would determine it and leave it up to you to decide if you feel comfortable with that or not. But with newer, "weaker" officials, I am expected to take on a leadership role, and will do so!

I can certainly understand how somebody might take offense to perceived officious approach I have described above. But from a personal standpoint, I realize that to become a better official, I must be willing to seek out all points of view, and accept them in principle, even if I don't care for the approach displayed in offering it!

I see! If I know umpires very well, I am sure that everybody feels that they should be queen though! ;)

Garth, I got to thinking that possibly you might have me confused with my Dad? He worked PAC 10 North way back when, and seems to be known by everybody in our region.

I know of your dad, but you and I have met at a clinic/camp and I continue to hear good things about you.

I'd rather be a drone.

Interesting aspiration.

I'd rather be a worker.