Tough ending to game

[dash_riprock]

Unless F2 stands up or hornets sting you in both eyes, you have to get that swing (if he indeed swings). I don't buy the tracking excuse. The swing will begin (relatively) long before your eyes track the pitch off the plate. That's your call.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Unless F2 stands up or hornets sting you in both eyes, you have to get that swing (if he indeed swings). I don't buy the tracking excuse. The swing will begin (relatively) long before your eyes track the pitch off the plate. That's your call.

Agree 100%! You have to see both the bat and the pitch. That said, why did you question your partner about his call? He rendered his decision when you went to him, so what's up with the questions? Who cares about the "bad ending" to the game - was your favorite team loosing? You are supposed to be an official so you don't care who wins or looses.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Unless F2 stands up or hornets sting you in both eyes, you have to get that swing (if he indeed swings). I don't buy the tracking excuse. The swing will begin (relatively) long before your eyes track the pitch off the plate. That's your call.

So why do we have swing appeals?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by waltjp

So why do we have swing appeals?

I agree with this.

[DG]

Originally Posted by waltjp

So why do we have swing appeals?

Because it is expected, by rule, and no one is 100% on determining yes or no.

That being said, studies have shown that a very high percentage of major league players could not stop their bat once started, so why would we expect amateurs to be able to do so? Vast majority of "check swings" are swings.

In my pregame I always say that if I come to you on check swing appeal to give me what you got because if I missed a strike I want it back.

[waltjp]

I'm not making an argument against the appeal. My question was to the post that stated that the PU has to get this call.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I'm not making an argument against the appeal. My question was to the post that stated that the PU has to get this call.

You don't think it's PU's job to see and call a swing?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

You don't think it's PU's job to see and call a swing?

You're pulling my leg, right? You can't possibly be this obtuse. Of course the PU calls ball and strikes but following your line of thinking there is no need for check swing appeals.

So what do you propose? Should the PU have sole authority for all balls and strikes, including all swings? Should we not have a check swing appeal?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by waltjp

You're pulling my leg, right? You can't possibly be this obtuse. Of course the PU calls ball and strikes but following your line of thinking there is no need for check swing appeals.

So what do you propose? Should the PU have sole authority for all balls and strikes, including all swings? Should we not have a check swing appeal?

The PU can and has the authority to rule on a swing. In NF rules it is up to the PU to make the request. So on some level the answer is yes. But if you do not see it, then ask for an appeal. But if you see a clear swing, why ask for an appeal?

Peace

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Of course the PU calls ball and strikes but following your line of thinking there is no need for check swing appeals.

That is not following my line of thinking. I have no problem with appeals. In fact, I love them and always grant them even in FED.

My comment referred to a situation where PU, with an unobstructed view of the batter, failed to see even an attempt at a swing (because he was tracking an outside pitch) that his partner eventually rang up. The OP intimated that it was a full swing, not a borderline check swing. That is a call that PU is expected to get without any help. You pull that stuff in college or even decent HS varsity and you will get chewed on (properly) for not getting your own calls.