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

1-2 count. no one on base. next pitch is a curve ball in the dirt. Batter takes a half swing. ump says "ball, no he didn't" ball rolls away from catcher towards the backstop. BR pauses for a split second and then upon seeing the ball rolling away takes off for 1st. no request for help is made by the defense. catcher quickly retrieves the ball, but BR is already standing on first w/o a throw. PU then beckons BR back to the box as the pitch was ruled a ball and now the count is 2-2. BR comes back to the box. then the defense team requests that PU get help. PU askes U1 if the batter swung at the pitch. U1 rules that he did swing. Catcher then throws the ball down to first. U1 gives an out signal. BR is still at the home plate area. Umps then send BR back to first as he had already reached first safely and was then put in jeopardy when he was brought back to the box by PU.

this was ncaa D1 conference game.

1. PU should have immediately asked for help if he thought it was close.
2. U1 should have offered his help immediately without waiting for an appeal.
if he thought the batter swung.
3. U1 should have said no swing once they reached that point (regardless of what he thought - just to avoid this mess)
but these things did not happen.
what would you guys have done?? could you call BR out ? would you not allow the appeal at that late time?? or did they do the right thing once they were faced with this scenerio
thoughts??

Yes the PU should have asked right away.... if it was me and the batter took off for first... I would check with my BU while batter was on first or even before he got to the base. I would not call the batter out if I made him return to the plate.

Here's what I have a problem with.

U1 should have simply agreed with the PU ESPECIALLY after "some time" has elapsed.

Yes the PU should have requested help immediately but since he didn't and the PU also brought back the BR, in order to "keep peace" the BU should have mirrored the PU's call.

You said a D1 college game so I am surprised by the lack of quality officiating concerning this scenario.

Pete Booth

A thorough pre-game would have eliminated this. Prior to the game I always talk to my partner(s) about this exact scenario. I request that the BU use a closed fist for swing and do nothing for no swing. Same as a dropped/trapped 3rd strike. I do not like BU offering help prior to being asked.

In the professional game, it is acceptable for the base umpire to offer help without being asked if there's a wild pitch....pitch in the dirt and the plate ump doesnt ask because he is trying to get out of the way of the catcher..... I would probually do it in a college game if I felt it was nessesary. It just cleans things up. If that really happened in a D1 game....
The base guy owes the plate guy a steak dinner!

What if even Helen Keller could see he went, and the only reason that PU didn't get it is because he didn't see it? Then you've shot all credibility to hell.

Yes.

Nope. He should have come in with the voluntary strike. While it has been the subject of discussion recently on this board, there is no reason not to use it at levels other than professional ball--this is a prime case in point.

This is why in my pre-game, I inform my partner that on an "anything and 2", if there is a checked swing and a passed ball, if there is a question, I will go to my partner without being asked. If I am the BU, I will give the PU a moment, if he does not come to me and he has not signaled a strike, I will give the call without being asked.

Both sides need to know the status of the ball and of the swing. Leaving it all to chance is very bad for the players and, as in this scenario, bad for the umpires.

So getting it right is less important than, A) keeping peace, or B) making a PU look bad?

I understand the repercussions of reversing a called ball to a third strike.
If I am uncertain I will gladly ask for help on my own.

But with all due respect, I have never understood why I would ask for unrequested help when my judgment was the batter didn't offer.

Ain't you giving someone and advantage? Perhaps the offense?
Isn't asking for help on a check swing a form of an appeal on a play?

What other appeal plays do you tip the offense to?

Like I said, I get the repercussions of reversal resulting in strike three.

That's enough said right there, except in 1. PU should have immediatly asked... period.

Do this and you don't have to worry about how to fix the screwup..

To avoid anything further, as plate ump you have the ability to call "time" when the br is on first base - check with your bu before you "beckon" the runner back to the box...

To avoid a sh***storm like the one in the OP.

Remember that FED includes a rule that allows umpires to "fix" situations caused by their own mistakes. So if the OP had been a high school game, the umpires would have been correct by rule to put the BR on 1B, since he had obviously made it there himself during the play.

sometimes your DI umpires aren't necessarily your area's best umpires. my take is at that level, an ump should know that a coach is going to appeal the check swing...ask right away...or like the other thread on here...if BU has a swing and PU has ball, BU needs to simply signal right away.

How did they GET IT RIGHT

here's what happened

On this play THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT, so the BU should have simply MIRRORED the PU's call.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE]
Here's what happened.

Credibility is already shot to hell.

As I said to Kevin

THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT in this OP.

If I were BU I would have mirrored my partner's call because as mentioned no matter what you do at this point the credibility of this crew is already shot. Also, the PU gave the EMPHATIC NO HE DID'T GO

I would then have a POST game to get my point across.

FWIW in FED although recommended the PU doesn't have to go to his partner.

Pete Booth

Ouch!

The plate umpire should have asked right away, but in his defense this mechanic is stressed more in the Blue book than in NCAA materials. The base umpire should have offered right away, but only if he was going to rule a swing/strike, but again not necessarily a NCAA mechanic.

Since neither happened the plate umpire should have asked before bringing the kid back to the plate and since that didn't happen the base umpire should have offered before he let the player go back to the plate.

It was a good learning experience for that crew and now us, thanks for sharing.

Nope! He should have stepped up a lot sooner.

Question - Does PU kill play?
 

Change the play just a bit.

1-2 count - Batter checks swing, PU yells "ball - no swing"; ball goes all the way to the backstop, clearly the BR would have made it safely to first but does not run. Catcher retrieves ball and asks PU to get help. BU says the Batter swung. What happens?

Does the PU have to ask for help?

The batter would be out.

This is why the mechanic is taught in pro ball that any time there is a check swing with 2 strikes and 1st unoccupied with less than 2 or it occupied with 2 out that the PU should immediatly without being asked.

IMO it is good to get in the habbit of going to a partner on one that you get blocked out on or that is down and away and you see a flash, but not enough because your eyes were tracking the ball.

After the PU said

You as BU ON YOUR OWN are going to over-rule your partner.

that's a new one on me.

Me I wait until I am asked on the check swing.

What next are you going to call balls and strikes as BU as well.

Pete Booth

Well, it is what they are teaching in the pro's on Check swings. And something that we have pre-gamed for two seasons now.

The reason - It prevents situations like the one described above. There are times to live and die with a call and check swings isn't one of them, unless there is something going on in that game that I don't know about. The defense asking the PU to appeal a check swing is the only ball/strike decision that they get to argue by rule, make sure you do your best to get it right.

if he swung, he swung...if your partner has a swing on this play, why not have him call it right away...that's the advantage of having a partner...it doesn't make you a better/worse umpire if you can/can't make the call on your own.

That's a standard and accepted mechanic at most levels in this situation. It avoids the sh!thouse your mechanic could cause.


I'm amazed it's regarded as new by anyone. It's been around for years and I 've seen it taught at both pro and amateur run clinics.

That's what I was thinking, and reports my experience as well.

So, Pete, you'd rather have this clusterf--k? Not me. There's a reason why the MLBUM has the section on voluntary strike, and why I use it even at the NCAA level, whether it's a D1 game or D3 game I work. It actually prevents problems like this from occurring. It's just common sense and good officiating.

A voluntary strike occurs when the batter has the opportunity to become a runner on a third strike not caught. At that time, the BU should immediately make the call on the half-swing without waiting for his partner to ask. As a plate umpire, I want my base partner(s) to do this!

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

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

It's the Bu's <a onMouseOver="javascript:window.status='judgement'; return true;" onMouseOut="javascript:window.status='';return true;" href="http://elephantine.info/?v=4%2E05&ss=judgement">judgement</a> vs. the Pu's <a onMouseOver="javascript:window.status='judgement'; return true;" onMouseOut="javascript:window.status='';return true;" href="http://elephantine.info/?v=4%2E05&ss=judgement">judgement</a> and whose to say which oine is correct.

ok to each his own

Pete Booth

Soooooooo, you're saying that a solution where the BU is required to "mirror" the PU, regardless of what he thinks is truthful and accurate is preferable to utilizing a mechanic specifically designed to handle this situation effectively and honestly.

My, oh my.

Apparently that's what he believes. Absent properly utilizing the "voluntary strike," the BU should just keep it a nonswing and a ball. However, that becomes moot if he employs the proper mechanic, that being the voluntary strike. There's a reason why this mechanic came to be: strictly because of this screw-up having occurred.

Oftentimes in umpiring, certain mechanics or interpretations come down as a direct result of these clusterf--ks.

There is no right??

On this play, JohnnyG 08 is right and Durham is right. So there's two rights right there.

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?

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.

So the end justifies the means? :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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?:rolleyes:

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.

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.

(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".

[QUOTE]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

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;593837]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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.