The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 08:23am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,688
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.
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.
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 08:26am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
Probably not. I can piss a long ways!
I have no clue what this means, but if I did I'd probably find it funny. If you come back, let me know.
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 09:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,772
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.
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
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 09:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
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.
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?
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 10:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
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.
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 10:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,577
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.
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 11:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hensley
So Garth, are you endorsing rei's practice of telling his partners how he expects them to judge whether a batter checked a swing?
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.
__________________
GB
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 11:29am
rei
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
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!
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 11:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
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.
__________________
GB
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 11:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
That's all well and good, but why would someone come on board and be so, well, inflammatory?
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.
__________________
GB
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 11:54am
rei
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
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.
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!
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 11:58am
rei
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
No real queen here. Some pretenders, lots of workers and more than our share of drones.
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.
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 12:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
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.
__________________
GB

Last edited by GarthB; Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:11pm.
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 12:02pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by rei
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'd rather be a drone.
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 21, 2007, 12:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
I'd rather be a drone.
Interesting aspiration.

I'd rather be a worker.
__________________
GB
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 07:28pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1