Delayed CheckSwing Appeal

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Huh? What rule is this?

It is Fed 8-3-b.

[SanDiegoSteve]

8-3-1b to be exact.

[Kaliix]

Okay, so you want to get technical. The rule, 9.02(c) specifically uses the word appeal 6 times calling this specific play an "appeal on a half swing" twice.

J/R page 78, the title reads Section III: Checked Swing Appeal and goes on to use the word appeal 11 times on the page when describing the rule. Look at the Case Book notes, they refer to it as an appeal as well.

Appeal defined means "to make an earnest or urgent request, as for help".

Oh and in the JEA under situations, Evans refers to it as an appeal as well.

Since the actual rule calls it an appeal, J/R calls it an appeal, the official Case Book notes call it an appeal and the actual rule contains specific detailed information about this specific type of appeal, I feel fairly confident that we can call it an appeal. One that is specifically defined in the rule book, backed up by the Official Case book and at least one major interpretation manual.

Oh and RBI's is grammatically incorrect, not just an extra letter. Runs batted ins sounds quite ignorant, aside from being improper English and just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by UMP25

An improper analogy, because help on a half-swing is NOT an "appeal" no matter how one parses it; however, RBIs = RBI--it's just putting a letter unnecessarily onto an acronym.

Oh, and I love your excuse of "umpires have been calling it that way for...". Who gives a rat's patootie? They're as confused now as they were then. I know MANY umpires who never considered that an appeal. I was never taught it was, and I don't teach that it is.

BTW, most others associated with the game believe a tie goes to the runner. I guess we're supposed to call it that way then, huh?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by SAump

Appeals.
1. Batting out of order
2. Batter-runner overrunning first base and not "immediately" returning (an arcane, dusty type of appeal).
3. Batter missing a base or home plate.
4. Batter leaving early and not making an attempt to retouch.
Non-appealing Appeals
5. Batter using illegal equipment
6. Batter offering at pitch and fails to check his swing in time

Maybe in FED, but not in OBR.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Kaliix

Okay, so you want to get technical. The rule, 9.02(c) specifically uses the word appeal 6 times calling this specific play an "appeal on a half swing" twice.

Oh, how I love umpires who get technical, because they're often technically wrong, as wrong as the rule book is, some 100+ times.

[charliej47]

When you state the Rulebook is wrong and then quote the Rulebook to justify your statements, aren't you using a circler argument?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by charliej47

When you state the Rulebook is wrong and then quote the Rulebook to justify your statements, aren't you using a circler argument?

What's a "circler?"

Hey! Did you just swear at me?!?

[Kaliix]

Gee, you failed to address the other 3 sources I cited. I wonder why that is??? Can you cite some source that verifies that the rule book is wrong, or should we just take your word for it?

Originally Posted by UMP25

Oh, how I love umpires who get technical, because they're often technically wrong, as wrong as the rule book is, some 100+ times.

[charliej47]

I think I was trying to say CIRCULAR, as in the argument justifies itself.

[Rcichon]

Bob can you cite the OBR rule please? I can't find it.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by charliej47

When you state the Rulebook is wrong and then quote the Rulebook to justify your statements, aren't you using a circler argument?

No, this isn't circular logic at all. Circular logic would be this: the rule book is wrong because it says it is wrong (not that this makes much sense). A better example would be the reverse: the rulebook is right because it says it is right.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Huh? What rule is this?

I think the point SAump is trying to make is that the defense cannot get an out on R3 by tagging him before the 'appealed' and ammended third strike. Before that happens, R3 is not in jeopardy. F2 would need to tag after the pitch was changed to a strike.

Can the defense get an out on any of these runners that were forced to advance by an apparent walk before the called ball is changed to a swinging strike?

[papablue]

Originally Posted by celebur

I think the point SAump is trying to make is that the defense cannot get an out on R3 by tagging him before the 'appealed' and ammended third strike. Before that happens, R3 is not in jeopardy. F2 would need to tag after the pitch was changed to a strike.

Can the defense get an out on any of these runners that were forced to advance by an apparent walk before the called ball is changed to a swinging strike?

By George, I think he's got it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Oh, how I love umpires who get technical, because they're often technically wrong, as wrong as the rule book is, some 100+ times.

The witness will answer the question.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Kaliix

...should we just take your word for it?

Bingo.