Texas - ASU game 3

[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.