Texas - ASU game 3

[UMP25]

I agree with your statements, Coach. Tony is being way too analytical and unnecessarily complex. Umpires all too often do that.

[Larry1953]

Well, I can't resist a comment. The pitch was obviously a ball and the PU gave no indication he was waiting for U1 to make a call on a check swing. In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway. If there wasn't time for the PU to call the pitch before the catcher's throw to second, then there certainly wasn't time for the catcher to ask for the appeal before making the throw.
Again, I think there needs to be a rules clarification on how a checked swing appeal affects the course of subsequent plays and what becomes "retroactive". Also, is a checked swing appeal subject to the same restriction as other appeals where they must be made before another play or pitch is made?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway.

That's not always true.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's not always true.

Bob, thanks again :-). The appeal of a checked swing is indeed not the same as an appeal on the bases. Hence the PU may initiate the appeal on his own. Here is a good article that describes the proper umpiring mechanics of the checked swing appeal:
The Amateur Baseball Umpire Home Page

Again, all of this cries for a rules clarification along the lines of "infield fly if fair". There needs to be some signal or understanding that "batter has walked if ball" or "play goes on if appealed to be a strike". Any rulings on batter interference should be made retroactively to the final outcome of the appeal. Both the offense and defense should remain alert to the "limbo" status of their actions. For example, the runner attempting a steal of second who was called out on the throw should be trained to "hold the bag" until all final rulings are made as to whether it was a ball or strike. Calls of BI should be allowed to be overturned and let the outcome of the play stand "as is" if ball four made the batter a runner. That solution would be infinitely better than the mess that was made of the Texas-ASU game.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, I can't resist a comment. The pitch was obviously a ball and the PU gave no indication he was waiting for U1 to make a call on a check swing. In fact, it is my understanding that the defensive team has to make some indication that they are appealing a checked swing to get the call anyway. If there wasn't time for the PU to call the pitch before the catcher's throw to second, then there certainly wasn't time for the catcher to ask for the appeal before making the throw.
Again, I think there needs to be a rules clarification on how a checked swing appeal affects the course of subsequent plays and what becomes "retroactive". Also, is a checked swing appeal subject to the same restriction as other appeals where they must be made before another play or pitch is made?

Larry, I do not want to talk about this particular play. I am interested in the general behavior the player who begins this type of play, a 3-2 pitch with R1 running. When can the hitter head toward first base and not be guilty of interference? It doesn't seem right that he can be allowed to interfere F2's throw in such a way that it allows R2 to advance to third. Again, I do not wish to question the PU's judgment on this play.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I agree with your statements, Coach. Tony is being way too analytical and unnecessarily complex. Umpires all too often do that.

That's one take. Another take is that plays like this 3-2 pitch R1 running on the pitch, create potential issues. It does not seem right in this situation to allow the player who started as the batter to do something that would cause him to be out for interference on any other count and have that action allow R1 to advance to third.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

That's one take. Another take is that plays like this 3-2 pitch R1 running on the pitch, create potential issues. It does not seem right in this situation to allow the player who started as the batter to do something that would cause him to be out for interference on any other count and have that action allow R1 to advance to third.

What you are perceiving as "not seeming right" is causing you to overanalyze and make this even more complex than it should be. For one thing, who ever said the batter did something that required an out be declared?

I'll leave you with this quote from one of our instructors at umpire school, a quote I still remember 22 1/2 years later:

Don't trouble trouble, because trouble will have no trouble troubling you.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UMP25

What you are perceiving as "not seeming right" is causing you to overanalyze and make this even more complex than it should be. For one thing, who ever said the batter did something that required an out be declared?

I believe Tony has made it clear that he is not speaking to a particular batter, but rather to a possible situation. Getting an understanding in advance is not such a bad idea. Discussion is how some of us arrive at understandings.

[Tim C]

Ump25:

Thank you for using your sources to let us inside this odd play.

I also have a good friend that worked a Super Regional . . . when I finally got a hold of him he hadn't even heard about situation.

Thanks,

T

[UMP25]

I wasn't trying to use "sources." I didn't go out of my way to learn this info. I simply related what this morning my friend Frank told me when he and one of his partners discussed this. The fact that your friend didn't hear about it doesn't change a thing. Frank and Bill heard about it, especially since Billy spoke to one of his colleagues, one of the umpires of that game.

[Larry1953]

With a pitched ball that does not end up hitting the bat or the batter, five things can happen: 1) the PU judges the pitch out of the strike zone and calls the pitch a ball, 2) the PU judged the pitch to have crossed the strike zone and calls a strike 3) the batter swings and misses resulting in a strike,!4) the batter checks his swing in such fashion that the PU judges he should use his discretion to immediately ask for an "appeal" ruling from the appropriate BU, 5) the batter checks his swing in such fashion that the PU does not ask for the appeal but the defensive team does think it is worth an appeal.

When the runner is breaking for second, there typically isn't time to get all the appeals straightened out when the time difference between whether a fastball or a curveball was thrown makes the difference as to whether the baserunner will be safe or out. With three balls on the batter, all I'm asking is that in 4) and 5), the umps simply let the play go on and retroactively settle the checked swing and BI/RI issues after the dust settles.

Let's say the batter had to take a step over the plate to avoid getting hit in the head by ball four and thus "interfered" with the catcher's throw to second. Would you seriously entertain the thought of calling him out for interference??? Technically, he could be ruled out for BI if it was not ball four (intentional or unintentional while out of the batter's box) but on ball four? That would just not make sense.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Let's say the batter had to take a step over the plate to avoid getting hit in the head by ball four and thus "interfered" with the catcher's throw to second. Would you seriously entertain the thought of calling him out for interference??? Technically, he could be ruled out for BI if it was not ball four (intentional or unintentional while out of the batter's box) but on ball four? That would just not make sense.

No, because I wouldn't rule interference if it were ball 3. OK, suppose we don't call interference because its ball four and if it were ball 3 we would have called interference, would we leave R1 at third if he advance there because of the "interference"?

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No, because I wouldn't rule interference if it were ball 3. OK, suppose we don't call interference because its ball four and if it were ball 3 we would have called interference, would we leave R1 at third if he advance there because of the "interference"?

Well, if you wouldn't have ruled BI on ball three then you would not have been in compliance with the rule on BI where it doesn't matter if it was intentional or unintentional if the batter moves out if the batter's box, even if the movement was to save his life. To further beat the horse, a runner has to show intentional interference - you know like when Reggie Jackson intentionally threw his hip into the throw between first and second in the World Series against the Dodgers yet the umps STILL didn't call it. I am not an ump, but common sense tells me to let the play stand as it turned out with R3 and R1 and one out. Otherwise, we will have coaches telling their catchers to make the throw to second the moment the walked batter-runner crosses in front of them to claim the bogus BI/RI call and make a travesty of the game.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

W I am not an ump...

It goes without saying.

[UMP25]

A D1 umpire friend of mine who lives in southern Cal. (he used to live out here several years ago) called me this morning to talk about his yearly visit here next month. Among things we discussed was the play in question. My friend knows and has worked with a couple of the guys on the TX-ASU crew. One of my buddy's regular season partners, a Super Regional Umpire himself this year, spoke to the crew chief of this game in question. Here's what my friend Frank told me that his partner Bill had said:

• The plate umpire forgot the count when he made the call; he thought it was ball 3, which was why he called batter interference
• In the crew meeting, the crew chief said he didn't have interference on the play in the first place and wanted to let the play stand as it happened on the field
• The PU said there was no way he was going to reverse his interference call; he was sticking with it

The first point above tells me what I've been saying all along--the PU mistakenly ruled this batter interference, which it was not. Consequently, the call but more importantly the ruling was incorrect.