Is bailing a checked swing?

[Rich]

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.

[Rich]

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.

[David B]

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

[mcrowder]

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?

[Justme]

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.

[LMan]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

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!

[GarthB]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

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!

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[Rich]

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I'd rather be a drone.

Interesting aspiration.

I'd rather be a worker.