Is bailing a checked swing?
 

OBR, if it makes a difference.

High inside pitch, heading for the batter's chin. Right-handed batter twists/spins to his left, leaning away from the plate, bringing his bat in close to his body, and ending up facing the third base dugout, with the bathead next to his right ear. Bat never came close to the strike zone, but did pass by the plate (almost vertically) in the process. Batter's intent clearly was to avoid the pitch, and not to attempt to strike at the pitch. In other words, a classic twisting out of the way of an inside pitch, spinning in the same direction as a swing, and holding the bat up and close to the body.

PU, thinking the batter did not offer at the ball, calls ball. Coach appeals a checked swing. PU asks BU (in B position) "Did he go?" BU, thinking the bat went through the strike zone, says "Yes, he did" and rings up a strike.

Q1: If PU doesn't think that the batter ever attempted to hit the pitch, should he refuse a request for an checked-swing appeal?

Q2: In ruling on a checked-swing appeal, should BU make an independent judgment about whether the batter attempted to hit the pitch before determining whether the batter successfully checked his swing?

You answered your own question. But I have seen batters clearly hack at the pitch as they bailed out....



Q1: In OBR the PU must honor the request for appeal. In FED it is not a requirement, but its not a smart move to refuse.

Q2: The criteria for judging the swing is the same for the BU as for the PU...did the batter make an attempt to hit the ball?

I dont understand the 'make an independent judgment' part. Are you asking if he should take the PUs ruling into account? Thats always going to be "Ball", or the appeal would not have been made.....

"BU, thinking the bat went through the strike zone, says "Yes, he did" and rings up a strike."

BU needs a rules lesson. The criteria is "did the batter attempt to hit the ball?" and NOT "where did the bat go"?.

2.00 A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which --
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

My main question is whether PU should (must?) go for help on a checked swing appeal if requested by the defense even though PU does not think there was a swing (an attempt to strike at the pitch) at all. In other words, can there be a checked swing when there is no swing at all? And if there is no checked swing, can the defense make a checked-swing appeal? Should PU refuse to go to his partner and simply say there was no swing to appeal?

By "independent judgment", I meant should BU assume that there was a checked swing if PU asks for help (remember the PU's question was "Did he go?") and simply rule on whether the assumed swing was checked in time. So far, the answer seems to be no, that BU must perceive an attempt to hit the pitch, and not break the question into an initial attempt to hit the pitch and then a successful interruption of that attempt before going too far.

LMan's all over this one...
 

LMan gave you the correct answer to this in his post. In OBR, if requested, PU must ask for help on a check swing appeal. In FED it's not required, but it's a good idea to go ahead and ask for help.

I don't understand why you wouldn't go for help. Go for help, and if BU rules a strike, we're that much closer to refreshments after the game!

I was on the plate Sunday and had waist high slider come in on a lefty on a 2-2 pitch. I followed the pitch in, because it was VERY close to being a strike, and thought that I also had the checked swing covered well. I said ball. Catcher asked for an appeal. I went right away, still thinking there was NO WAY he went after it.

BU rang it up (long time Pac 10 ump). After the game, I asked him how close it was, he said "Not close at all, he obviously offered at it". :eek:

The moral of the story is, I ALWAYS go for help when the defense asks. I can be so sure I have it right, but obviously, I don't always!

I go regardless of what rule book I am umping under. It is a curteous thing to do, and provided that it doesn't make a mockery of the game, I see no harm in "getting some help".

I should add that when I am working with a somewhat "weak" partner who I may or may not trust to make the right call, I cover check swings in my pre-game with them, and tell them how I want it called! I explain that they can call it any way they want with other partners, but would prefer for this game for them to call it the way I do. This sort of get's around the problem of them thinking that somebody else's interpretation is the proper one. :)

Now you have me a little curious. You tell them how you want a checked swing called? Could you clarify this? Do you tell them, "Just agree with what I called if they ask for an appeal," or do you explain what constitutes a checked swing?

If it's the first, I would have to disagree with that advice/ request. I've had partners say that to me, and my form response has become, "If you ask me for help, I'll give you what I got. If you don't want my opinion, don't ask."

I've seen crews get into trouble when they had an agreement to 'just agree' with the PU.

Amen to that. I had a couple partners who have given me different mechanics according to whether he really wants my opinion or not. Somewhere along the lines of "palm up and no voice signal, just agree with me. I point and verbalize "did he go", then I need your opinion." This is crap, and I told them so. I have no issue with getting help when needed/warranted, and don't take it as a blow to your damn ego if I call a strike on it.

As someone else on this board has beautifully put it, "Strikes, Outs, Beer."

In the ncaa did they not change the rule to that if the bat crosses the front of the plate it is a swing? So that would be a swing in the ncaa. I don't agree but am i wrong there?

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.

Who died and made you boss? Partner comes to me on a check swing, he gets my judgment. Always. I don't care how he wants it "handled."

LOL...you must be one of those "weak partners"! ;)

uh oh.....

Stand back boys.

And you are likely someone who would be working the bases if I was your partner.

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."

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.

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?

short answer
 

No.

Thanks
David

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.

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.

Probably not. I can piss a long ways! ;)

How long have you umpired?

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?

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.

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

So Garth, are you endorsing rei's practice of telling his partners how he expects them to judge whether a batter checked a swing?

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.

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.

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.

Past Quote from you



And now your new "kinder & Gentler" position?

I have been around for a few years, been a crew chief for 'that day', and have conducted meetings with my crew to talk about how we will handle situations (especially if we haven't worked together) BUT I have never "told" nor been told how to judge a check swing. I know that by the time you reach D1 ball, assuming that's the level you work since you mentioned the PAC 10, that even the less experienced umpires are capable of judging a check swing on their own.

How you present your suggestions/feedback makes all the difference in the world. If you offer 'advice', rather than demand, you'll find most people willing to accept what you have to say. Not just in baseball but in all areas of life.

Now this I agree with (bet that makes your day :) )

Again, the method and manner of your deliverly makes the difference in how it it taken.

1. This is probably a good rule of thumb at the NCAA level, but one would think that there were no "weak" umpires for him to need to instruct at that level. It sounded like he was referring to lower-level games, and giving this advice. At any other level besides NCAA, his advice sucks.

2. Yeah, you know everybody. Nobody cares.

3. If my association of 20 years had continued to work college ball after the 1993 season, I would have worked college ball too, as I was slated to do so. Our association, to whom I was extremely loyal, lost the college contracts to a rival group, so our upper-tier baseball became HS Varsity, which I have been working regularly since 1987. I have 21 solid years of experience, not one year experience 21 times. That makes me qualified to comment on other people's advice.

4. Those people amuse me as well.

5. Unlike you Garth, I extend a hearty welcome to all, regardless of whether or not they agree with my position, or have the same level of experience.

Well, I look forward to other threads where maybe we can all find common ground to discuss umpiring. But in this thread, I think I have ran out of ways to constructively discuss this topic with some, and think it might be time to move on to other pressing issues in umpiring amateur games! :)