Can somebody explain how they (you personally) call the check swing and ask for help? I had one partner who told me, "I can't see it from B or C position, only when im down the line"

I told him that "if the catcher jumps in front of my vision right when I see the Batter 'flinch' then I need your help"

What do you think?

What is the exact definition, and what do YOU look for? Broken wrist, bat comes around, body twists, etc...?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~`
What you need to look for is the batter attempting to strike at the ball. If a kid squares to bunt and leaves the bat out over the plate, pitch comes in over his head, he is NOT attempting to strike at the ball...keep it simple..

There is really nothing to prepare for as it is an instant thing and happens probably once or twice a game or two.

I call it a strike if the bat breaks the front plane of the plate but that could change depending on where the batter is standing.

The high and low pitches present a problem for the PU but it not that important for the PU to nail it. Your primary job is to call the zone and not the swing. If you miss it you miss it that's why they MAKE you go to your partner on the call of ball. If he can't see it he will just say "he didn't go" and signal safe because he has to call it something. Not a biggie. G.

thanks, appreciate the clarification guys!

That's hogwash........
While the PU can sometimes get blocked out by the actions of the catcher, the BU should always be able to see and judge. While some judgments may be more difficult to make than others, the BU should always be able to see the action to make the call. If he feels he can't make the call from B or C, then he needs not to be umpiring. It's required to be able to assist your partner from those positions when needed.


Freix

Yeah, I honestly figured him for being lazy.

The only approved criterion for deciding whether a batter offered at the pitch or not on a half swing - aka checked swing - is contained in the NAPBL/PBUC Umpire Manual Section 1.12 and says:<ul><i>The umpire's decision on a check swing shall be based entirely on his judgement as to whether or not the batter struck at the pitch.</i></ul>That clearly lets out such arbitrary criteria as the bat breaking the plane at the front of the plate, the batter's body rotating or the batter's wrists uncocking (I prefer that term to "breaking his wrists" - that has other connotations for me. *grin*)

If you need some guidelines I would suggest the following:<ol><li>Did the bat and ball arrive together over the plate at the same point in time?<p><li>Did the bat and ball pass by in proximity to each other BEFORE the forward motion of the swing was halted?<p><li>Did the batter begin to withdraw the bat BEFORE the ball arrived over the plate?<p><li>Was the bat motionless over the plate while the ball passed by well removed from proximity to the bat?</ol>If the answer to BOTH 1 and 2 is "Yes", then I'd adjudge that the batter has <u>failed to check</u> his swing. If the answer to EITHER 3 or 4 is "Yes", then I'd adjudge that the batter has <u>successfully checked</u> his swing.

In order for the batter to have offered <i><b>at the pitch</i></b>, as required for a judgement of "<i>Yes, he did swing</i>", then the bat, ball and plate must all be in proximity to one another at roughly the same time. <ul><li>If the swing is obviously late, say well after the catcher has gloved the pitch, then even though the batter may have failed to check his swing he clearly didn't offer <i><b>at the pitch</b></i>.<p><li> If the ball was 3 feet outside the batter's swing arc and in the dirt when it went by the plate, the batter may have failed to completely check his swing but he surely wouldn't have offered <i><b>at the pitch</b></i><p><li>If the batter's body rotated through 160 degrees, but the bat remained on his shoulder the whole time, then he clearly hasn't offered <b><i>at the pitch</b></i></ul>It is a judgement call, but save your judgement for the single question "Did the batter strike <i><b>at the pitch</b></i>" rather than worrying whether the bat broke the plane, the wrists uncocked or the batter's body twisted like a corkscrew.

BTW, you might want to consider reading my 3-part series entitled <i>Help of a Half Swing</i>, archived at Officiating.com, for a more detailed analysis of the check swing appeal, its limitations and applications. There are certain occasions, identified in those articles, when it is entirely appropriate to ignore or refuse a checked swing appeal, despite the clear requirements of Rule 9.02 Note.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

<b>If the swing is obviously late, say well after the catcher has gloved the pitch, then even though the batter may have failed to check his swing he clearly didn't offer at the pitch.</b>


Warren:

With a R1 stealing second many coaches have a batter swing a bit late or slow enough to slow down the catcher without committing obvious interference. In these cases I rule that "yes indeedy, he went". I suppose I could call interference on the batter, but in these cases it's a tough sell and I choose to penalize the offense with the call that will bring about the lesser of the sh$t houses.

Point taken, GB.

The case I was thinking about occurred late in the game during a District League Div 2 fixture. The defense was short of pitching, so they were forced to leave a very ordinary pitcher on the mound - one we call a "pie chucker", because the ball travels so slow and is so easy to follow that it looks as big as a pie. He was ordinary enough that he had great trouble finding the zone most of the time. The offensive batters were figuratively licking their lips at the opportunity before them.

When the next batter, a known slugger, came to the plate the count agonized out to 3-1. On the next pitch the ball was clearly up, although it was over the plate. The batter's first instincts took over, and he didn't offer right away. However, milliseconds after the ball hit the catcher's glove he realised that he had probably missed his last opportunity to smack one over the fence, so he swung the bat! I called "<i>Ball four. No he didn't go</i>" and followed that with an explanatory "<i>Alex, if you're going to convince me you've swung you'll have to do a lot better than that. Take your base.</i>" The catcher never said a word. He knew I'd done his pitcher a favor.

I'm not talking about a swing calculated to interfere with the catcher. I'd probably prefer to call the interference in such cases, but I take your point about the hard sell. The point was that there was no dispute that the batter swung - it just wasn't "<i><b>at the pitch</b></i>", which was clearly over before the swing began. That's more than "<i>a bit late</i>", wouldn't you say? *grin*

Cheers

Great Umpires Think Alike
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

...When the next batter, a known slugger, came to the plate the count agonized out to 3-1. On the next pitch the ball was clearly up, although it was over the plate. The batter's first instincts took over, and he didn't offer right away. However, milliseconds after the ball hit the catcher's glove he realised that he had probably missed his last opportunity to smack one over the fence, so he swung the bat! I called "<i>Ball four. No he didn't go</i>" and followed that with an explanatory "<i>Alex, if you're going to convince me you've swung you'll have to do a lot better than that. Take your base.</i>" The catcher never said a word. He knew I'd done his pitcher a favor. Cheers

Warren;

Last year, I told of a case where the pitcher was giving an intentional walk when the count went to 3-0. The batter swung at air as the next pitch was delivered 2-3 feet outside. The batter made no attempt to hit the ball, he just wanted to delay the inevitible and make the pitcher throw more pitches. Since I knew that the next pitch would be at his head, I ruled "No, he did not go!" and sent him to first base. The OFFENSIVE coach came out and wanted me to check with my partner. I told him that only the catcher could make that appeal and the catcher smiled at the other coach and said "No dice" or words to that effect. The coach, being stymied, went back to the dugout. The batter apologized to me after the game for he realized that his actions could have had severe repercussions.

Anyway, I created a huge contoversy, not at the game, but on this forum with that post. You, on the other hand, did not even generate one reply. (grin)

Peter

Peter:

And as you may recall, surpisingly, I wasn't one who joined the outcry. Instead, I believe that I agreed that you correct to the letter of the rule, but I pondered, as I do now, if that's the call that they would make in the Majors.

I wish my memory was better at my age, because I know I saw Willie McCovey swing half heartedly durinf an intentional walk at Candlestick in the 60's. I cannot for the life of me remember what the umpire ruled. I just recall the fans laughing.

Re: Great Umpires Think Alike
 

Peter, we've both called a lot of ball at a level where the players shave, so we both know only too well that you frequently have to temper what you call with a liberal dose of game management. I don't remember that post of yours. Perhaps it came during the long period of my absence from this forum. Sounds like you made a pretty fair call to me. *grin*

As for not generating a single reply, don't forget that could easily translate as apathy toward me and my opinions! *BIG grin*

Cheers

FED Rule 10
 

Following Rule 10-1-4 Federation rules make the following comment:

NOTE: The umpire-in-shief- sometimes asks for aid from the base umpire when there is a question as to whether a batter's "half-swing" is such to be called a strike. As an aid in deciding, the umpire may note whether the swing carried the barrel of the bast past the body of the batter, [b] but final decision is based on whetehr the batter actually struck at the ball.[b] emphasis mine

As said by others, although this note give a possible method for helping make the decision based upon furthest extent of the bat, the final decision is to be based upon the umpire's interpretation of the batter's intent.

In general, the batter is obviously indecisive as to whether he should be swinging or not, so I help confirm his indecision. "Yes, you went."

I can't think of a time when I have been questioned for saying that the batter did go. But there have been numerous "situations" precipitated by saying no he didn't go. The defense always wants the strike called. The offense recognizes the indecision of the batter and generally tolerates the strike call.

As stated by those before me, the situation can also determine the proper call.

Wolf,
to answer the second part of your question. I always pre-gamed this with partners. It usually went," I'll only ask if you're in A. If I ask quickly and point to you with my right hand, tell me what you saw. If I ask slowly and point to you with my left hand, I want my call to stand." If he offers assistance based on the catcher or coach asking, he gets the "death stare".

Say WHAT???
 

Let me make sure I don't call with you. If you ask me, I'll tell you what I saw period. If you don't want to know don't ask period.

Re: Say WHAT???
 

AND LET ME MAKE SURE I DON'T WORK WITH YOU, GOBAMA... Until you recognise who's team you are on.

If I yell "Ball; he didn't go." And the catcher asks for help and I say, "Ball; he didn't go." "Well, can we just ask for help?" So I reluctantly remove my mask and point down at you saying "He didn't go, did he?" and you come back with what you saw and say "Yes; he did!"

You'd better have drove yourself to the game because you surely won't be riding home with me.

I'm just wondering how the rest of the game will go... Now that the players know that, if I don't give them the answer they like, they can ask you and get a different answer. That's pretty much letting the players call their own game because now they can choose which answer they like. There goes the umpire's objectivity and consistency. Thanks partner (heavy sarcasm) :(

Until you get this "right" you need to gobama your head on a wall.

Re: Re: Say WHAT???
 

1) The situation you describe is not the same as woolnojg described (RH = answer; LH = always agree).

2) Why would you box yourself into a corner by repeating the "he didn't go" and then asking? Just say, "ball" and then ask, if requested. Saves everyone a lot of grief.

For anyone who's posted that they indicate whether or not they want their call to stand at the dish: this is a clear violation of the rules. And I don't mean one of those pesky grey areas where we get to use our judgement, but a clear, unflinching violation of both the spirit and letter of the law. For this call and THIS ALONE, the rules permit an appeal. So give it. If players abuse it, there are more than enough citations to stop the abuse. But try to call a fair game before fixing it.

Besides, if you're good at the dish, in my experience, most partners won't disagree. When I work two-man I rarely get disagreeing calls from the sacks. Once or twice a game maybe.

Re: Re: Re: Say WHAT???
 

Bob, I think you'll find that is the current approved pro mechanic, as described in the UDP <i>Manual For The Two-Umpire System</i>. Here is an excerpt from Section 10.9 Procedures for Check Swings, found on pp84,85.<ul>If the pitch is a ball and the batter does not swing at the pitch, the mechanic to be used is "Ball; no he didn't go." If the pitch is a ball but the batter commits on the check swing, a two-part mechanic is to be used: "Yes he went," while pointing directly at the batter; then - after finishing the pointing - the umpire shall give the strike signal.</ul>Most umpires in upper level ball understand the use of the "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>" mechanic as indicative that their PU partner had a clear look at the check and made a decision that the batter did not offer. In those circumstances crews at that level trust the umpire who is 100 feet closer to the play to have the better view, and never overrule that call.

OTOH, if the PU is unsighted or simply calls "<i>Ball</i>" only, then the BU should feel entitled to offer the next best opinion on the check attempt when questioned.

That "understanding" has become traditional among most umpires at the upper levels of the game. The 1976 Note, appended following 9.02(c), is a hangover from the days when umpires believed that the bat head breaking the plane of the plate was the single best criterion for judging a swing. NAPBL/PBUC 1.12 shows that more modern thinking has clearly superceded that with pure umpire judgement on the offer. Most now accept that unless the PU was unsighted, he is clearly in the best position to see any attempt to offer or check.

Frankly I consider it particularly ironic that the check swing Note appears in 9.02, considering that rule deals principally with NOT overruling your partner on a judgement call!

Hope this helps

Cheers

Steve, there are MANY cases where by History or Tradition umpires clearly violate the rules. Allowing fielders stationed outside the 90 foot square as infielders for the purposes of the Infield Fly rule is one. Allowing that the runner creates his own base path, contrary to 7.08(a.1) is another. Not calling the balk penalty under 4.03(a) during an intentional base on balls is still another. (When was the last time you saw that called in a pro ball park?)

The 1976 Note appended following OBR 9.02(c) is an anachronism. The spirit and intent of the original rule was to <b>permit</b> the umpire to ask for help if needed, not to <b>require</b> him to do so and be overruled at the behest of the defense.

The current 1976 Note is a reflection of the early 70's belief that the best way to judge a half swing was to note whether or not the barrel of the bat broke the plane at the front of the plate. It bred the assumption that the BU in position A or D was in the best place to make that call.

NAPBL/PBUC 1.12 clearly demonstrates that is NOT how umpires are expected to judge check swings these days. Given current expectations, unless unsighted the PU is clearly in the best position to judge - having the bat, ball and plate all within his immediate field of vision.

For that reason most crews at upper levels will NOT overrule a check swing decision made at the plate. That is demonstrated by the PU using the "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>" mechanic approved by the UDP. The use of "<i>Ball</i>" only is similarly treated as if the PU was unsighted, and the BU should therefore respond with his next best opinion on the check attempt.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Why, oh why do people CARE about this?

My God, if I'm behind the plate and someone asks me to appeal, I ALWAYS appeal. I ALWAYS want my partner to rule it a strike. I DON'T CARE!

Chalk this umpire up as another who will call exactly what he sees, every time, from LL up through college baseball. If you don't like it, well, tough.

Rich

Well, Rich, if that's truly the case and you honestly DON'T CARE, why don't you just call EVERY pitch a STRIKE?

If that's truly the case, why don't you just call EVERY play at a base an OUT?

Most officials DO CARE, and most want to do a good job - at any level. I know this issue has stuck like a burr under your saddle for a long time. I just don't understand how someone with your obvious ability can admit that you simply DON'T CARE about doing a good job.

BTW, I don't think anyone said "Don't allow an appeal" - well, most of the time anyway. Like me they just don't want the official with the best view overruled because some out of date rule Note says you have to<ol type="i"><li>appeal to an umpire who doesn't have as good a look at the play AND <li>accept his well-intentioned but possibly flawed answer no matter what!</ol>Heck at worst you should be allowed to convene a 9.04(c) conference when you have two different rulings on the same play!
(That was only a joke, Rich) :D

Cheers

Warren is old fashioned :)
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

...Most umpires in upper level ball understand the use of the "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>" mechanic as indicative that their PU partner had a clear look at the check and made a decision that the batter did not offer. In those circumstances crews at that level trust the umpire who is 100 feet closer to the play to have the better view, and never overrule that call. OTOH, if the PU is unsighted or simply calls "<i>Ball</i>" only, then the BU should feel entitled to offer the next best opinion on the check attempt when questioned. That "understanding" has become traditional among most umpires at the upper levels of the game. The 1976 Note, appended following 9.02(c), is a hangover from the days when umpires believed that the bat head breaking the plane of the plate was the single best criterion for judging a swing. NAPBL/PBUC 1.12 shows that more modern thinking has clearly superceded that with pure umpire judgement on the offer. Most now accept that unless the PU was unsighted, he is clearly in the best position to see any attempt to offer or check. Hope this helps Cheers

Warren;

You analysis is correct for games played prior to the mid '90's in America. Around that time, there was a big push to eliminate this "code" communication between the PU and the BU. In NCAA, we are now emphatically instructed NOT to engage in any type of code communication with our partners over the check swing.

The coaches aren't dummies. They pick up the communication and then use it against us. Therefore, all checks are now done in the same way regardless of what view the PU thinks he had of the play. The only exception is the dropped strike three and then the PU checks immediately before being asked.

I submitted an article on this problem to Carl about two weeks ago. Our Great Leader must have seen this thread because he just posted the article.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Jul 16th, 2003 at 08:56 AM]

I CARE about doing a good job. I DON'T CARE if my partner takes a check swing I've called a ball and reversed it to a strike. I shrug my shoulders, say, "Then it's a strike," and give the new count.

Peter's article is the first where someone "important" agrees with me -- the plate umpire DOES NOT HAVE the best view of a checked swing. The PU is too close and most of the times I'm overruled it's when I'm tracking a pitch and the batter checks. I can see one or the other, not both -- I'm too close to see, for example, and outside corner curve ball and a batter checking his swing. If the pitch is a BALL, I will probably HAVE to check.

The plate umpire does not EVER, EVER, EVER have a better look at the checked swing. Disagree, fine. But we will have to A2D, then because I will never be convinced otherwise. And I will NEVER be convinced that an umpire can refuse a request for a checked swing in OBR. It's in black-and-white. And it is poor game management for most umpires to refuse this request, even where it is allowed by rule.

Again: Why, oh why, would I EVER care what that umpire calls? If he believes that batter offered, I'll take his word at it.

Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jul 16th, 2003 at 09:36 AM]

Re: Warren is old fashioned :)
 

Maybe we DO lag a little behind the latest advances in US thinking on mechanics. I'm not sure that's entirely a BAD thing. We get to watch ESPN to see the shortcomings before we are expected to alter our processes!

The only thing I can say is that we follow the currently approved professional mechanics, as published in the UDP <i>Manual For The Two-Umpire System</i>. I had this discussion with T. Alan Christensen some time back, where he said he'd never seen nor heard of such a call ("<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>"). To his everlasting credit he came back later and reported he had just seen and heard the call used in a Minor League game. That was in 2001 (I think). Seems to be at odds with your early 90's assessment for the change, Peter.

I know that this mechanic was still being taught at Evans in 2000. After that I can't report, only speculate. :D

Cheers

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~`
Gotta agree, Rich...hell, its an umpires free strike!!!! I have worked with some guys that don't even see what happened and bang the batter, or better yet....as I am pointing and checking they look like a deer in the headlights!!!!!

Okay, A2D. All I'm saying is if the PU definitely HAS seen the check swing AND calls "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>", that is not the same as your umpire not seeing the check and simply calling "<i>Ball</i>" only. If you don't EVER make the "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>" call then you can expect to get asked EVERY TIME there is a half swing, frivilous or not, and you can also expect your BU partner to overrule ANY TIME he feels the urge.

OTOH, those of us who CAN easily see a successful check, AND are still willing to call it as a decision reserved solely to the plate umpire (call and count balls and strikes - OBR 9.04a.2), will continue to use the UDP approved professional mechanic and expect our partners to honor our judgement call.

Now you say the PU "<i>...does not EVER, EVER, EVER have a better look at the checked swing.</i>" Do you mean even with BU in A and a lefty at bat? And if you concede that single occasion, then why not otherwise when the PU has already deliberately made a decision? I don't know any PU's who would call "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>" unless they were <i><b>absolutely certain</b></i> they saw the check! Overruling a partner in that case is tantamount to calling him a LIAR, wouldn't you say?


You are aware there is no rule-based TIME LIMIT on check swing appeals, aren't you? So are you saying that you would NEVER refuse a request even after 2 or 3 innings had passed? Sure that's a ludicrous example, but it begs the question "Where are your limits, and would you refuse an appeal once those limits are exceeded?"

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 17th, 2003 at 03:06 AM]

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but I believe that a check swing can be appealed up until the next pitch. Now, I'm not saying that the SMART thing for my partner to do would be to uphold that appeal, but that would be a discussion on another thread.

The rules are a guideline. You trotting out 9-oh-whatever to justify the plate umpire having the decision on balls and strikes is, well, I don't know what it is, but I bet that this was already in the books long before the base umpire was brought into play to help on half-swings when asked. The book is a piece of crap and using it to argue this point while saying other parts should be ignored in other threads is being very selective.

By giving the base umpire such power to call a strike when asked by the plate umpire, SOMEBODY determined that the base umpire sometimes has a better view than the plate umpire. Now, why would you think the rulesmakers REQUIRE the plate umpire to check? I think it is because some umpires would refuse to check and because SOMEBODY feels the base umpire has the superior view. The plate umpire is TOO CLOSE.

Rich

Not hard at all. It makes great sense to me to apply that limit. Unfortunately it's not in the rules. Also unfortunately it modifies your previous statement that you would NEVER refuse to ask on appeal because it's black letter law. Now we know you WOULD refuse to ask on appeal, <i>if</i> the appeal came after the next pitch, even though that's against your black & white rule. I agree with that, so why wouldn't you agree with my contentions that you shouldn't ask if the appeal is delayed, say, until the catcher retrieved the ball from the backstop on a passed ball? Allowing THAT appeal clearly gives the defense an advantage not intended by the rules!

Actually the rule giving the plate umpire the "option" to seek help from bystanders, if he needed it, first entered the statutes in <b>1876</b>. As such it <i>preceded</i> rule 9.04 describing a plate umpire's duties by a significant number of decades. The original rule was modified around <b>1911</b> to include the PU's partner as the only party from whom he might be at "liberty" to seek help. Requesting help from the base umpire on appeal was only made "mandatory" with the <b>1976</b> Note appended to 9.02 following the 1950's major rule rewrite.

So, for around a <b>125 YEARS</b> baseball got along quite well without demanding the plate umpire abide by the opinions of the base umpire or anyone else on check swings!

In the 70's they used to judge a check swing by whether or not the bat broke the plane at the front of plate. If you want to go back and live in the 70's then your BU in A certainly DOES have the <i>best</i> view on that, even with a lefty! BUT we don't use that criterion in isolation any more, and for good reason. Check the much later interpretation from NAPBL/PBUC 1.12 to see that I'm right about that.

The <b>plate umpire</b> is the ONLY official who can unequivocally judge ALL the material facts applicable to the new criterion - did the batter offer "<b><i>at the pitch</b></i>". Your BU in A can't even SEE the pitch in its all-important travel over the plate with a left-handed batter. Heck, he's hard pressed to see the pitch AT ALL, because he's side on to it instead of staring straight down the path of its travel! Now tell me again how you believe that only the BU is in the best position to judge the check swing. Heck, Rich, I've seen BU's answer with "<i>Yes he did swing</i>" on an appeal of a half swing where the barrel of the bat broke the plane of the plate but was never more than 6" off the batter's shoulder! Surely you can't call THAT offering "<b><i>at the pitch</b></i>".

The base umpire is TOO FAR away, and he's got a LOUSY ANGLE to call the offer "<b><i>at the pitch</b></i>"! :)

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 17th, 2003 at 09:15 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

The <b>plate umpire</b> is the ONLY official who can unequivocally judge ALL the material facts applicable to the new criterion - did the batter offer "<b><i>at the pitch</b></i>". Your BU in A can't even SEE the pitch in its all-important travel over the plate with a left-handed batter. Heck, he's hard pressed to see the pitch AT ALL, because he's side on to it instead of staring straight down the path of its travel! Now tell me again how you believe that only the BU is in the best position to judge the check swing. Heck, Rich, I've seen BU's answer with "<i>Yes he did swing</i>" on an appeal of a half swing where the barrel of the bat broke the plane of the plate but was never more than 6" off the batter's shoulder! Surely you can't call THAT offering "<b><i>at the pitch</b></i>". The base umpire is TOO FAR away, and he's got a LOUSY ANGLE to call the offer "<b><i>at the pitch</b></i>"! :) Cheers

Warren;

To answer a couple of questions from two different posts:

1. Yes the pro schools still teach "No he did not go" as a mechanic for ALL check swing calls by the PU when the PU feels that the batter successfully checked. However, the BU in pro and NCAA is now forbidden to read anything into the PU's statement. There is to be no "code" communication.

The PU is instructed to call a check swing the same way every time. If it's "Ball, no he did not go" or just "Ball" or whatever, it should be the same each time and every time. Because of the stigma attacked to "no he did not go" from the prior code, most top level NCAA types have dropped that from their repetoire. Most minor league umpires drop it shortly after leaving pro school. The PU is not allowed to attempt to clue in his partner about what he saw. The BU is to make his call based on what he, the BU, saw, not on what he thinks his partner saw.

All that being said, I am sure their are some Smittys out there who refuse to change with the times and still use code. In about 1 in 20 NCAA games that I work, my PU partner will request that I go along with his calls if he gives me a signal. With Dave Yeast's recent assertion of authority over all things NCAA, I now refuse to honor my partner's request. 5 years ago, it would have been political suicide to stand up to a big dog. No it is political suicide to tick off the administrators too much. How times have changed.

2. With regards to the check swing view from A on a lefty by the BU:

About two years ago, I wrote on the boards of a study done by Rich Humphrey, an AAA umpire who worked a dozen or so games in MLB as well before retiring to NCAA ball. During each check swing call in his games in AAA ball (which uses three umpires) the umpire on the opposite side of the call would make a note about what his impression was. Thus, the first base umpire would note all check swings on lefties while the third base umpire would actually make the call. Likewise U3 would note his impression for righties while U1 made the call. Afterwards, in the locker room and with the benefit of video tape, the umpires made a slow motion determination of what they felt the real truth was. It turned out that the opposite side umpire was correct more often that the umpire that was assigned the call by tradition. Even though they had the proof, this mechanic was never adopted because they felt that there would be no way to sell the call to the coaches.

Baseball is very tradition bound. Even though it was obvious from the early part of this century that some check swings were being grossly missed by the PU, it took until 1976 for the a required appeal to be adopted into baseball rules. At that rate, it will be the end of the 21 century before U1 is calling the check swing on a lefty.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Jul 18th, 2003 at 01:38 PM]

Peter:

What we have experimented with in a three man system is always going to the man on the rail regardless of the "handedness" of the batter and not going to the man on the infeld grass at all.

An umpire in C or B has a worse view than the coach.

I don't doubt your assertions about that AAA survey, but what criteria did they use in their post-game deliberations? Looking at the check again in the dressing room, but continuing to use the old "plane-of-the-plate" or "bat-barrel-past-90-degrees" theories to determine the validity of the opposite umpire's call, might not prove it to be quite as useful an exercise. The other point is that umpires who work at that level are generally pretty sharp. Would the results be equally valid for the vast majority of umpires of amateur ball? Who knows, on either count, but it certainly is interesting to speculate.

BTW, wasn't there an "official" exercise in professional ball that evaluated the BU's ability to get it right on check swing appeals? I thought they used video evidence in that case too, and found that professional base umpires were right most of the time. The question I'd have to ask there was were they still using the "code" during that exercise, and how many times did the BU overrule the PU's call when the PU had already made the "<i>Ball; no he didn't go</i>" call. My impression was that the survey was in response to complaints about BU's failing to overrule their PU partner, but I might be WAY wrong about that. Just interested is all.

It certainly has been worth discussing. I'll probably continue to do it the "old fashioned" way. We all tend to follow the rules of the system we work WITHIN as much as the rules of the system we work UNDER. It works for us, but if and when we catch up with your guys, what I'm used to doing or what I believe about the value of that won't matter. I'm sure you'd agree.

Cheers

Warren: Your four guidelines in your earliest post are excellent. Practical recommendations that any umpire trying to improve his game can understand and implement are rare but welcomed indeed. Thank you.

You are most welcome, insatty.

Cheers