Is bailing a checked swing?

[Paul L]

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?

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Batter's intent clearly was to avoid the pitch, and not to attempt to strike at the pitch.

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.....

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Paul L

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?

"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;

[Paul L]

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.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Paul L

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?

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".

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.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by rei

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.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

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."

[Clint Lawson]

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?

Originally Posted by ctblu40

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.

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.

[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.

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."

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

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"!

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by rei

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

uh oh.....

Stand back boys.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rei

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

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