Delayed CheckSwing Appeal
 

Situation: bases loaded and 1 out, count 3-2. Batter apparently pulls back a checkswing on the pitch and the PU awards base on balls.

As the runner from third is jogging from third the catcher casually walks 8 feet up the third base line and tags the runner as they pass, then turns to the plate umpire and wants to appeal the last pitch to the BU for possible strike three call.

Would you allow the appeal and subsequent double play??

This was brought up on another site and I indicated that I wouldn't allow the appeal because there had been too long a delay between the pitch and the appeal. As well, the tag of the R3 was not part of the original play(pitched ball) and I would interpret that as another "play" had taken place and the defence had lost it right to appeal.

How long should the runners remain on their TOP base before ensuring their advance is really without jeopardy of being tagged out as a result of a checkswing appeal??

Comments??

Avoid the whole mess. I know it is not the question you asked but preventative umpiring....
PU should instantly, on his own, check with BU on the checked swing.

I don't believe the rules support your other interpretations. I have, as BU, ruled no swing in such a situation simply because my $^#?! partner's bad mechanics put the runners in jeopardy; an opinion I did not share with anyone except my partner and then after the game.

I agree with the preventative umpiring recommendation. If you don't immediately check with your partner in a situation like that, my opinion would be that any intervening play eliminates the chance for an appeal. As it is only my opinion and I cannot support it by rule (presently), it very well might be wrong.

In that situation though, I am not letting a smart catcher wait to tag the runner from third before appealing the check swing so he can get an easy double play.

There's an advanced (I guess it's advanced) mechanic that I use in this situation. Of course talk it over with your partner(s) before the game.

Since you can bet the farm that the defensive coach will appeal a check swing (ball call) on a 3 & 2 count, especially with bases loaded, the BASE UMPIRE automatically indicates “Yes, he did” if that would be his response when appealed. This saves a lot of problems in this type of situation and on uncaught 3rd strikes that the batter attempts to check swing.

But, in your situation, if I were the BU I would not have changed the call.

PU to me: “Al, did he go?”
Me: “NO”
Judgment call, no problems...play ball

I'm not going to appeal immediately to my partner on every 3-2 checkswing ball call I make. What if you did this 5 times a game? It would look like I can't make up my mind about whether the batter ever went or not.

If I didn't think he went I'm balling the pitch and I'm not going to make it look like I want my partner to make the call for me.

Unlike some other instances where I might go immediately to my partner for help, this shouldn't be a situation where my view is blocked and I couldn't see the whole play.

What do others think??

I think it looks worse if the situation in the OP happens because you don't immediately go to your partner.

Huh? A request for help on a check swing is NOT, by definition, an appeal (at least not in NCAA and OBR). Therefore, there's no such thing as "another play having taken place." You have opened yourself up to a protest with your "interpretation."

If your big problem is that it looks like you can't make the call, MAKE THE CALL, then step out and ask for help. Tell anyone who cares, the catcher asked for an appeal on that. By doing this, the runners will stay put, and not be in jeopardy. Otherwise based on the stich, you have two outs and I don't know how many ejections.

p.s. I know in fed you do not have to, but everywhere else As I understand YOU MUST grant the appeal.

I'd grant the request and rule accordingly:

OBR: There's a specific note in the rules that the baserunner must be alert to the possibility of the call being changed. The runner is out.

NCAA: Same as OBR.

FED: Call the BR out, but put R3 back at third -- this was an umpire's call that was changed and put one team at a disadvantage.

Bob, in OBR, if you were the runner, how long would you wait until you were sure there wasn't going to be an appeal? Theoretically speaking could the runners stand on base for 2 full minutes and then start to go to their next base and then the catcher tags the runner and only then appeals the checkswing? I would hope no BU would ever overturn the "ball call" but if they did you would let the play stand?

If the BR reaches first and none of the other runners are moving because of this situation would you call time and then instruct the runners to move?? Not sure if this is legal but does have precedent with hit batsman.

I'm simply having trouble accepting the fact that the defense can delay the appeal as long as they want and the only answer I'm getting is for an umpire to basically appeal his own call to BU.

I knew I shoulda looked up the interpretation before answering. I was wrong. What Bob said above...

First of all, it might help if you stop thinking of this as an "appeal."

UMP25,

It is an "appeal"; it's just not an appeal of a baserunning infraction.

JM

No, it's not an "appeal." What you quoted is a misuse of the word "appeal."

There are 4 types of 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 leaving early
4. Batter missing home and not making an attempt to retouch.

Appeals are an assertion by the defense that a member of the offense didn't do something he should have done. Check swings do not fall under this categorization, and to think they do is what causes so much confusion, especially for this thread's author when he referred to a play occurring after said check swing (never mind his not realizing what continuous action is and how that was what occurred in his situation).

Need Better Pre Game
 

In the 2 man system, unless BU is in A, and check is on a right handed batter, and unless you were blocked by the catcher, that is a very tough call to make from the inside. That being said, you want your partner to give you what he has. It is the runner's responsibility to know the game situation at all times. The question seems to be how the catcher handled this. It seems to me that he tug the runner first, then asked for an appeal, your partner had enough time to realize what was going on, and by calling a swing was going to create a major s--thouse. These situations call for using your game mgt. skills. It's not what was right or wrong call here, it comes down to how it was handled, and you both come out of this looking bad.

Oh, another five of the 230+ errors they keep leaving in the book, huh?:rolleyes:




Edited for tibear:)

Exactly, Steve. This is probably a minor one, but one that can cause a lot of confusion and even problems, as illustrated herein.

If this isn't an appeal what you prefer it be called?

As well, looking at OBR it states: in 9.02:
Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire must refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the half swing. Should the base umpire call the pitch a strike, the strike call shall prevail.

The rulebook clearly states that an "insert alternative to appeal" can only take place when the PU calls a ball and when ASKED to "insert alternative to appeal". Thus, by the stricktist sense of the rulebook the PU doesn't have the right to "insert alternative to appeal" to the BU until he is asked to avoid this whole situation. The PU cannot initiate the "insert alternative to appeal" but MUST wait to be asked which allows this situation to be setup.

I know this is getting stupid but others are now getting personal on what I think is a perfectly valid question.

Whoa there Slick, I was quoting what UMP25 said. I wasn't getting personal. Slow down. I have always called it an appeal as well. I was pointing out my frustration with all the so-called "errors" that keep making there way back into the book every year. I am pushing for a major re-write of the OBR book. I volunteer to do it if nobody else wants to. Just so I can quit hearing about, "oh, that's one of the 230+ errors in the rules, and we interpret it blah, blah, blah..."

Help on a half-swing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another myth kept alive. It's no harder for me to rule on a swing/no-swing from the middle than anywhere else.

Yep,
 

What Rich said!

Plus if an umpire . . . ya'll know the rest of this refrain.

Regards,

While it may not be an appeal under the summarily listed appeals in the JEA, or by the strictest of definitions, umpires as well as most others associated with the game have been calling it an appeal for so long that it might as well be.

Getting them to stop now would be like trying to those in baseball to stop calling them RBI's. It's a freaking RBI, no " 's ". Runs Batted Ins just makes no sense.

One of the big problems of this web site or the internet is we have so much mental masturbation over a simple issue. If you are working a game and an appeal is likely, ask for help immediately. If you ask for help immediately you will not have to worry about the "what ifs" that might be as a result.

Peace

JR is right here.

Because there is one other thing about the play everyone is missing, players and coaches who are at least half awake are not stupid about things like this.

If it is a close check F2 will go immediately for an appeal. He won't wait around, since if he does it makes it pretty clear to everyone he thinks it was a check, and BU will almost certainly not overrule it.

If it is a close check, then both the offense and defense will know there is an appeal coming, and nothing is going to happen until the check is made.

Yes, if you hear a bench squawking in a close game go before you asre asked. But please tell me how many times this situation has happened in a game you have done (0), and how many times has a catcher waited 10+ seconds before he asks for an appeal (0)? And how many times is a BU going to overrule a PU in this situation and put a runner in such jepardy when the defense waits for two days before asking for help (0, if BU has a clue).

Exactly!
 

Couldn't have said it any better.

Good umpiring makes the game so much better for everyone.

Thanks
David

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?

I agree
 

Who says "take your base" after ball four? If I chose to allow the appeal or the subsequent DP, then I would suggest that "take your base" may become an approved verbal mechanic. Until then, I would not allow the appeal, nor the subsequent DP. Besides, it is a live base-on-balls award. The defense by rule is not allowed to register an out on a runner forced to advance as a result of the walk until such an award is completed.

When I train umpires, I cringe when I hear a guy working the stick say, "Take your base." I usually yell out, "What base should he take and what should he do with it when he takes it? How long can he keep it? Does he have to give it back?" or something like that.

Huh? What rule is this?

It is Fed 8-3-b.

8-3-1b to be exact.

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.

Maybe in FED, but not in OBR.

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

:eek: 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?!? :eek: :D

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?

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

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

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.

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.

The witness will answer the question.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_12_23v.gif

Bingo. :)

Well alllllllllllllllrighty then....:)

Yeah, didn't you know that the "R" in J/R stands for "Randy?":rolleyes: :)

Indeed, Steve. ;)