check swing appeal - what a mess......

[jicecone]

Wait a minute here. I am in Pete's corner here.

Some of you are so intent in teaching everyone the pro-mechanic, you are missing the fact the the PU ANNOUNCED, "No he didn't go." Not one of you have stated that the pro mechanic says you are to step up and over rule your partner after he has clearly made his decision. The end result was correct for this situation.

I do not know the correct Pro mechanic and if your telling me that the BU is to step up and quickly over rule an announced decision by his partner, well your just going to have a big sht house anyway. And no I am not condoning a mirrored call.

I understand and agree what should be done, but is it applicable for this situation, because gentlemen that is what we are discussing here. What happened, not what should of happened.

So, is the mechanic applicable for what happen here or not?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Wait a minute here. I am in Pete's corner here.

Some of you are so intent in teaching everyone the pro-mechanic, you are missing the fact the the PU ANNOUNCED, "No he didn't go." Not one of you have stated that the pro mechanic says you are to step up and over rule your partner after he has clearly made his decision.

The "pro" mechanic, which is not limited to just the "pros," does, indeed, state that the base umpire is to immediately make a call without waiting for his partner to request it. This is done specifically to avoid this completely avoidable debacle, the blame of which lies totally on the umpires.

I am amazed on how many of you are so enshrined in this sacrosanct notion of umpire exclusivity that you can't grasp a little common sense and effective mechanics which would have prevented this in the first place.

The end result was correct for this situation.

So the end justifies the means?

I do not know the correct Pro mechanic and if your telling me that the BU is to step up and quickly over rule an announced decision by his partner, well your just going to have a big sht house anyway.

Hardly. I've done this twice in my career as base umpire, and BOTH times it resulted in a quick, decisive, and definitive call that no one disputed. In fact, in one of these cases the head coach of the offensive team stated that he was "impressed" by what he called the "continuity of the crew in preventing what would have been mass confusion and a headache."

This "voluntary strike" is not decades old. It was put into the MLBUM a few years ago roughly, and why? Because this had actually happened. As is the case with a lot of interpretations and mechanics tips that aren't otherwise mentioned anywhere, these things usually come to be after a situation occurs that prompts their creation. Now that the "voluntary strike" is a recommended mechanic, the situation at hand is less likely to occur if it's used.

[jicecone]

I am amazed on how many of you are so enshrined in this sacrosanct notion of umpire exclusivity that you can't grasp a little common sense and effective mechanics which would have prevented this in the first place.


And I am amazed that you are so intent in impressing us with your knowledge that you have'nt answered the question for this situation.

Does the mechanic state that you are to step-up and over-rule your partner 's announced decision?

PU "No he didnt go"

BU "yes he did"

That is what we are discussing here.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Does the mechanic state that you are to step-up and over-rule your partner 's announced decision?

PU "No he didnt go"

BU "yes he did"

That is what we are discussing here.

PU "No he didnt go."

F2: "Ask Bob."

PU: "Bob, did he go?"

BU "Yes he did"

Gosh, the PU said he didn't go and then the BU stepped-up and over-ruled his partner 's announced decision...is that allowed?

[DG]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Does the mechanic state that you are to step-up and over-rule your partner 's announced decision?

PU "No he didnt go"

BU "yes he did"

That is what we are discussing here.

It's an oxymoron question because PU should have waved a safe call if he did not think he went and then immediately went to his partner for check swing appeal. Because he screwed the pooch is no reason for BU to abandon his trained mechanics (and put the offense at a disadvantage) to immediately rule a strike if not asked by the PU. He would not say "yes he did" because that would be a response to a question not asked. He should point at the batter with left hand and vigorously pump his right fist several times and say "that's a swing". The BU has now taken the heat off the PU and placed it on himself. Any forthcoming arguments will be short because the BU made an unmistakeable call that was clear to everyone.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by DG

It's an oxymoron question because PU should have waved a safe call if he did not think he went and then immediately went to his partner for check swing appeal. Because he screwed the pooch is no reason for BU to abandon his trained mechanics (and put the offense at a disadvantage) to immediately rule a strike if not asked by the PU. He would not say "yes he did" because that would be a response to a question not asked. He should point at the batter with left hand and vigorously pump his right fist several times and say "that's a swing". The BU has now taken the heat off the PU and placed it on himself. Any forthcoming arguments will be short because the BU made an unmistakeable call that was clear to everyone.

Thank you DG

Sometimes we get so intent in saying what could of or should of happened here, we lose site of what really happened. I agree with your reply.

[UMP25]

DG and LD have answered it well, because regardless, every attempt to seek help on a checked swing is, in reality, the base umpire overruling his partner on such an "announced" call if the BU rules it a swing and a strike.

There's a reason why this mechanic was instituted, a very good reason, and it's one we all should seriously consider using. It doesn't mean that we're somehow more perfect umpires, it just makes our job easier in the long run and avoids the problems like the one in the OP's scenario.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I am amazed on how many of you are so enshrined in this sacrosanct notion of umpire exclusivity that you can't grasp a little common sense and effective mechanics which would have prevented this in the first place.


And I am amazed that you are so intent in impressing us with your knowledge that you have'nt answered the question for this situation.

Does the mechanic state that you are to step-up and over-rule your partner 's announced decision?

PU "No he didnt go"

BU "yes he did"

That is what we are discussing here.

(Many) Plate umpires have been trained to say "no he didn't" on all check swings. So, it's not really a problem if the base umpire responds "yes he did." And, I'd rather have the discussion "we shortened the process so eceryone would know what was going on" than "we waited too long and put your team at a disadvantage."

I do think it points out the folly of having PU say "no he didn't" rather than just "ball".

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I am amazed on how many of you are so enshrined in this sacrosanct notion of umpire exclusivity that you can't grasp a little common sense and effective mechanics which would have prevented this in the first place.

The aforementioned unfortunately is what often happens on the internet.

We are NOT talking about WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. I was responding to what ACTUALLY happened.

In the OP the PU emphatically said no he didn't go. Brought back the BR after the BR was on first base SAFELY.

A good amount of time passed and NOW the PU goes for help. IT'S TOO LATE.

I will stand by my decision in this.

1. Either the BU mirrors the call AT THIS POINT DEALING WITH THIS OP.

or

2. the PU refuses to ask since he was so emphatic to begin with.

in Summary: We are NOT talking about what should have been done etc. but dealing with the FACTS as presented.

Pete Booth

[UMP25]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;593837]

The aforementioned unfortunately is what often happens on the internet.

We are NOT talking about WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. I was responding to what ACTUALLY happened.

In the OP the PU emphatically said no he didn't go. Brought back the BR after the BR was on first base SAFELY.

A good amount of time passed and NOW the PU goes for help. IT'S TOO LATE.

I will stand by my decision in this.

1. Either the BU mirrors the call AT THIS POINT DEALING WITH THIS OP.

or

2. the PU refuses to ask since he was so emphatic to begin with.

in Summary: We are NOT talking about what should have been done etc. but dealing with the FACTS as presented.

Pete Booth

Under NCAA and OBR (I don't work NFHS so Bob will have to chime in on that), by rule, if he's asked by the defense, the PU is obligated to go for help. In the OP, Pete, because the voluntary strike wasn't utilized, I actually agree with your first sentence: the BU should have just stuck with the PU's original call--no swing--regardless of what he actually thought. That would have prevented the whole mess.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The aforementioned unfortunately is what often happens on the internet.

We are NOT talking about WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

Incorrect. As most often the case when someone presents a scenario that results in a sh!ithouse, most posters were, indeed, addressing what should have been done.

I was responding to what ACTUALLY happened.

Only in part. You still addressed what you thought SHOULD have happend by suggesting action the BU SHOULD have taken. One can't participate in a discussion like this without addressing what SHOULD have happened. To do otherwise would be to simply repeat and analyze what happened without offering a solution.

The difference between your "should of" and most everyone elses "should of" is simply one of timing. Most others chose to step back further in time and explain what proper procedure would have prevented the whole mess. You just didn't step back in time as far and presented a solution that some of us don't feel is as professional; that is mirroring, even against one's better judgement. That's still addressing what should of, not what did.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The ONLY reason there was a clusterf--k? was because the BU called it a strike.

I can't believe that you would advocate an umpire making up things that didn't really happen for appearances sake.

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If the BU simply mirrored the call all would be "right with the world"

No, that would make him a liar, and especially so if it was obviously a swing, which would illustrate the fact that he has no character.

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

and whose[sic] to say which oine is correct.

Nearly everyone else in the discussion, not to mention the widely accepted mechanic.

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

ok to each his own

No, there is only one right answer, and mirroring an obviously bad call is not the solution. The right thing would be for the BU to immediately rule a swing in this situation.

[Kevin Finnerty]

And if I were to elaborate on my stated opinion on this matter, it would read a lot like what Steve just wrote---Steve, the man who went back and walked the walk (in a smaller suit than before) and became an honor student again.

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Many) Plate umpires have been trained to say "no he didn't" on all check swings. So, it's not really a problem if the base umpire responds "yes he did." And, I'd rather have the discussion "we shortened the process so eceryone would know what was going on" than "we waited too long and put your team at a disadvantage."

I do think it points out the folly of having PU say "no he didn't" rather than just "ball".

I was trained to say that less is more... Ball and strike is all you need to call, if you rule a strike on the swing, it doesn't matter because it can't be appealed, its a strike, if you rule a ball, its a ball, you don't have to announce what made it a ball, no need to say, "It was high and inside and the batter didn't swing." Just say BALL.

In addition with 2 strikes and less than three balls ball in the dirt the minute the batter leaves for first. Its the old philosophy of letting the players umpire themselves, which I'll admit doesn't always work. If he heads for first, then he swung.

To accomplish this, a good pace on the call gives you the chance to read and react to the batter. If you wait that breath for the ball to hit the glove all game then waiting that breath for the ball to clear the catcher and the batter to run is no different.

If he reacts after my "breath" and ball - then I'm asking BU right away. Because the catcher hauling tail to retrieve a "ball" is his 'appeal' on the checked swing.

When I'm BU, if the batter doesn't run then I make my decision when asked. If he does run, then I give him what he wanted, he swung. (At least if its even possible, I have seen a player leave on a passed ball in which the bat never left the shoulders - use common sense)

Thats just how I do it, and i've never seen a pro-mechanic book, or an NCAA one either. Thats just what I do for your consideration.