And another weird one

[His High Holiness]

All;

The gremlins were out last night in my 13 inning 4:05 marathon. I felt like a third world umpire.

NCAA rules. Bottom of 11th inning, R2, R3, 1 out. The defense decides to intentionally walk the batter. After a 3-0 count, the batter takes a big cut at ball four which is 2 feet outside. (The hope here is to make the pitcher throw two extra pitches and perhaps the ball will get away from the catcher allowing the winning run to score.

I ruled that he did not go. A swing has to be an INTENTIONAL act to hit the ball. Since he did not intend to hit the ball, he was just getting exercise. The OFFENSE weakly asked me to check with my partner. No can do! Only the defense can make that request. The batter went to first without further ado.

Peter

[Striker991]

As a relatively new umpire, I don't understand this concept. If we are to judge intention on a swing, then how does a checked swing come into play? On a checked swing, the batter's intention is not to attempt to hit the ball. His intention is to stop his swing. Please clarify.

[Marty Rogers]

OBR 2.00
A strike is a legal pitch...which is struck
at by the batter and missed.

Jaska/Roder 2.00 Ball/Strike
A pitch is a strike if the umpire judges that
the batter has swung and missed.

Not to be confused with 9.02(c)
where the PU (and BU, if asked) must
determine if a partial swing was, in fact,
a swing.

There is no language in OBR stating that the swing
must be INTENTIONAL (or "offered at" which we hear
often in regards to a bunt/half-swing). If there is,
please identify where I can read it in the rule book.

What age level was this game? I'm surprised you
didn't get an earful over this one.

[Bfair]

Hmmm......somewhere I recall reading an article saying something like 3rd world plays happen to 3rd world umpires.

In your case, I'd have ruled the strike.
His options are limited to 3 strikes to accomplish what he was trying to do. It is easily argued a full cut at a pitch is an attempt to strike the ball.

When a batter swings at a poor pitch to "cover" a stealing R1 and comes nowhere near the pitch, do you also rule it a ball if it's not in the strike zone---knowing the batter's intent was not to strike the ball?

Is your judgment better in one situation vs. the other?
My guess is your judgment is accurate in both, but I doubt if you'd rule the same in the steal situation as you did last night.


Just my opinion,

Freix


BTW, Peter, are you now turning into a "rules hound".....LOL


[Edited by Bfair on Jun 21st, 2002 at 10:02 AM]

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Marty Rogers

What age level was this game? I'm surprised you
didn't get an earful over this one.

NCAA rules. That means players age 18-22. This game was played before a paying crowd of 795. (Announced attendance)

No one argued a thing except the OFFENSE asked me to check with my partner. As a matter of fact, there would have been far more serious reprecussions had I allowed this to continue. In advanced levels of play, left unchecked, events like this can result in beanballs, etc. At the NCAA level and above, umpires cannot afford to allow things like this to happen. Even if we have to be creative with the rules, we must rein this s$$$ in.

I ruled, he did not go, which is my perogative. The defense must have agreed with me because they did not ask me to check with my partner.

If nothing else, the batter was making a mockery of the game. The penalty for that is much more serious.

The batter knew that he had done wrong. He apologized to me after the game.

Peter

[brumey1107]

As I agree the game the integrity of the game needs to be upheld but would the same call be made if the tables where slightly turned?

Situation:
Count on Batter is two strikes and less than three balls with first base unoccupied. Pitcher throws a wild pitch, uncatchable by F2. Batter takes level swing, no intention of hitting pitch, but knows he has excellent chance getting to first on dropped third strike rule.

Is the pitch called a ball and batter forced to stay at plate? If not and is called a strike then it appears we'd have two different rulings for the same action do we not?

[Jerry]

Peter,
I can appreciate your decision and that's not what I'm questioning. I would have called it a strike, by definition of a "legal pitch which is struck at by the batter and missed." In that same definition however, are the words "when so called by the umpire." I suppose you can call it anything you want, and be able to justify it with some pretty persuasive arguments, which you did. Because the defense and 745 paying spectators didn't lynch you is hardly a persuasive argument though.

BUT . . . FED rules allow for an Intentional Walk without requiring pitches to be made. Ostensibly, for the very reason you cited for NOT calling it a strike.(To prevent a batter from swinging and forcing the pitcher to make additional throws; could cause unnecessary injuries, slow the game down, etc. etc. etc.) Using that logic, a swing at a pitch obviously outside and unable to be hit in rules that require pitches to be thrown . . . would conclude that such a pitch should be called a "Strike" not a "Ball", otherwise the rules of the game would prohibit a batter from swinging at an obviously unhittable ball.

What do you think of my reasoning?

Jerry

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Jerry

BUT . . . FED rules allow for an Intentional Walk without requiring pitches to be made. Ostensibly, for the very reason you cited for NOT calling it a strike.(To prevent a batter from swinging and forcing the pitcher to make additional throws; could cause unnecessary injuries, slow the game down, etc. etc. etc.) Using that logic, a swing at a pitch obviously outside and unable to be hit in rules that require pitches to be thrown . . . would conclude that such a pitch should be called a "Strike" not a "Ball", otherwise the rules of the game would prohibit a batter from swinging at an obviously unhittable ball.

What do you think of my reasoning?

Jerry

Good point, Jerry.

Furthermore, Peter posted:

The hope here is to make the pitcher throw two extra pitches and perhaps the ball will get away from the catcher allowing the winning run to score.

It appears the batter was judged by the umpire (since he tells us his judgment) to have been making a legitimate effort within the rules of the game to attempt to benefit his team. The umpire just didn't like or agree the means in which the batter was attempting it. It was not stated that it was judged that he was attempting to make a travesty of the game.

Who is to say:

• the batter may not have been right, and the defense would have thrown the ball away?
  
  
• the pitcher may not have put a pitch too close, allowing the batter to hit it and catch an unsuspecting defense offguard?
  
  
• the batter may not have swung at 2 pitches, and then the defense would elect to risk the possibility of pitching the 3rd strike to this batter?

I think that the umpire's decision, although perhaps explained through some highly technical interpetating of the rules, still took away what was judged to be the batter's legitimate effort to attempt to aid his team legally.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Marty Rogers]

I think this is an example of changing
the rules (or not following them) by the
umpire. Perhaps it was meant in good faith
and for what he believes is a good reason,
but nevertheless, this ruling can't be
backed up by any rule book, and it not a
customary call.

Kind of like the thread I started last month
where my partner told a kid to back out of
the box and tuck his shirt in. Then he directed
the pitcher to pitch, which he called a strike.
His motivation was to "teach" the kid to keep
his shirt in without being told (again) by the
ump. A good method (in his mind), but totally
against the rules of baseball, and making up his
own proceedures.

The hidden ball trick is not "nice" either,
but it is legal. Being "creative" with the rules
is NOT our prerogative as umpires, IMO.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by brumey1107
Situation:
Count on Batter is two strikes and less than three balls with first base unoccupied. Pitcher throws a wild pitch, uncatchable by F2. Batter takes level swing, no intention of hitting pitch, but knows he has excellent chance getting to first on dropped third strike rule.

Is the pitch called a ball and batter forced to stay at plate? If not and is called a strike then it appears we'd have two different rulings for the same action do we not?

I usually don't get into hypotheticals like your above situation. Normally it is a pointless waste of time. I only deal with things that I have seen or heard about in real live games and I have never seen a batter that was that quick on the uptake.

What I have seen is a batter, AFTER seeing the ball get by the catcher with two strikes, take a great big swing and try to advance to first.

Once again the definition of a strike from OBR:

"From OBR

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

IN MY JUDGEMENT, after a ball gets by a catcher, the batter did NOT swing at the pitch, he was getting exercise but he was not playing baseball. As such, he did not offer. To answer another one of the questions raised in this thread, he did not even intend to offer. He intended to subvert the rules of baseball.

Despite Bfairs cogent answer, if any of this were legal, you would see it MLB. A good rule for umpires to follow:

"If you don't see it in MLB, don't allow it in your games." I never saw a batter deliberately swing at air in MLB to forestall an intentional walk, so I won't allow it where I work. It's that simple.

If I had allowed this batter to get away with swinging at a pitch to subvert the intentional walk, the next pitch likely would have been at his head. Top level umpires are always aware of these types of things and take steps, legal and otherwise, to prevent them. Kiddie ball umpires let the s$$$ happen and wonder why the s$$$ ends up in their face.

Peter

[jicecone]

"If nothing else, the batter was making a mockery of the game."

Whoa here! Get off your pedestal Peter. Im surprised you even do such low level ball as this. What is you hat size? 9-3/4? You should be in the show with an ego like yours. Your gonna call the game the way you feel and the hell with everyone else.

What was the purpose of your thread to begin with. Passing on information, asking a question, or just trying to show everyone that you live up to you address "His High Holiness.

Who is making a mockery of what here? Where do you get off thinking your above someone using stragedy that YOU belive is not part of the game.

Son, it sounds to me like your ability may qualify you as a ""Top level umpire"", but your attitude and ego are definetly ""Kiddie ball".

[Bfair]

I wouldn't jump on Peter's case that hard.
Although Peter pointed out some facets of his judgment---thinking the batter was attempting to delay his walk in hopes of other gains---it's not to say the concept of mockery did not also enter his mind. It would be hard pressed not to in such a situation.

With BOTH concepts of potential judgment, it then becomes the decisionmaking process of which route do you choose.
Some decisions will be right; some will be wrong.
I've been on both sides with my decisions when opposing options are viable potentials.

There is nothing wrong in presenting the situation, and members should not be afraid to enter such posts. It's worse to ridicule one's person as a result of his honesty for admitting what and why he did something. That will only lead to others being fearful of being persecuted for decisions they made----thus slowing down the reasoning and learning process for us all.
This is not a personal issue.

BTW, Peter, you blew it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Just my opinion,

Freix

[jicecone]

Ok Freix,

You were, without a doubt, much more tactful than I.

[GarthB]

I'll probably regret this, but:

Peter postulated: "A good rule for umpires to follow:

"If you don't see it in MLB, don't allow it in your games." I never saw a batter deliberately swing at air in MLB to forestall an intentional walk, so I won't allow it where I work. It's that simple."

I don't believe that's in question. The question should be IF a batter in MLB were to take a swing at a pitch during an intentional walk, how would the ML umpire rule?

You really didn't prevent him from swinging. So much for "I won't allow that." In reality, you can't stop it. What is more important to your theory of doing what ML umps would do is finding out what they would indeed do should such a situation arise.

Why not put this to some pro umps and find out? T.Alan always has contacts with some ML folks. I have some access to some minor league umps. Let's throw it at those guys, high and outside, and see if anyone swings.

[jumpmaster]

Marty has quoted the definition of a STRIKE from OBR. The kid swung the bat at a pitched ball. He did not make contact with the pitch. Thus this is a strike. Period.

Umpire judgement is based on the observation of facts as the situation of develops. Facts being the key word. By attempting to define intent you cross over into the world of speculation. Maybe the kid wasn't all that bright and thought he could snag a hit (don't laugh, I've seen it).

Aren't there only 2 instances where an umpire can make a judgement based on his perception of the player's intent? 1 being in ruling a balk and 2 being malicious contact.

I'm kind of new at this, but wasn't this a blown call?