Dead ball strike-out vs hit batsman

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by UMP 64

Stops short of swinging "strike", did not "offer" cross plate, break wrist or any of the typical things we look for in a check swing.


Comments?

What on Earth does the plate have to do with this? Or the wrists?

Can we put two behind the ear of both these myths right now?

Honestly fellas, that's how these things get perpetuated. If umpires are saying the bat didn't cross the plate, what chance do have out there?

[jicecone]

Oz is exactly right here. When you start analyzing what you thought you saw or didn't see, and then discussing it, you are contributing to the uncertainty about your calls and given the DC more to argue about.

PU - Did he go? BU - No he did not.

Short and sweet and to the point. It also demonstrates to the DC that you were on top of the call and had no doubt about. Period.

[JJ]

This is a similar situation to a batter who is trying to bunt but gets hit by the pitch - it's not unusual for the defensive team to ask for an appeal on the bunt attempt even though the batter gets drilled in the chest with the pitch....it looks goofy so they ask.....but that doesn't mean he offered at the pitch, even if the bat doesn't OBVIOUSLY get "pulled back".

JJ

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by JJ

This is a similar situation to a batter who is trying to bunt but gets hit by the pitch - it's not unusual for the defensive team to ask for an appeal on the bunt attempt even though the batter gets drilled in the chest with the pitch....it looks goofy so they ask.....but that doesn't mean he offered at the pitch, even if the bat doesn't OBVIOUSLY get "pulled back".

JJ

I think I get your inference that the bat does not have to be pulled back on a bunt attempt. Is that what you mean?