What do you guys think of this one?

Can a plate umpire appeal to his partner on a check swing without ever being asked to check?

This question arises because I did it.

With a 3-2 count and the bases loaded, BR swings(?) at pitch in the dirt. BR takes off for first. I called "Ball, no he didn't go". Catcher drops it, bobbles it, etc. No one has any idea why BR is running to first- myself included. To clarify, I fire out from behind the plate, amd SELL the appeal. Partner says no, everyone moves up- no problems.

After the game, another supervisor tells me that I can't do that.
I tell him that I did it for EVERYONE'S benefit.
He says NO.

What do you think??


Bainer.

If, for some reason...sand in your eye, catcher stood up, you flinched, whatever...you don't know if the batter went, feel free to go to your partner.

If, however, you have already announced, "No he didn't go", then you shouldn't go, unless an appeal is made.

By vocalizing "No, he didn't go", you have already sold the call and you told everyone that you clearly saw it. in this sitch, I would not go to my partner unless appealed by the coach.

you can appeal whenever you want, it doesnt have to be requested because its you asking for help on something you might not be able to see. after saying he didnt go, i wouldnt ask because you just said he didnt go so that means you know he didnt go.

I would appeal anyway, even though I said "no he didn't go."

Why? Because the ball was in the dirt and caused a situation where we needed IMMEDIATE confirmation whether or not there was a swing. The defense could've waited until R3 came down the line, tagged him, and then appealed.

The "no he didn't go" is overruled, in my opinion, by the PBUC admonition to get help immediately if the ball gets away on strike three. The correct mechanic on a check swing is to ALWAYS say "no he didn't go" so what's the difference?

I'd be asking.

Rich

"The correct mechanic on a check swing is to ALWAYS say "no he didn't go" so what's the difference?"

Even if you thought he swung?

Bob

Of course not. You know what I meant :)

Rich

No, it is not!

That mechanic only applies "<i>If the pitch is a ball and the batter does not swing at the pitch...</i>" according to Section 10.9 of the UDP <i>Manual For The Two-Umpire System</i>.

If the pitch was a ball BUT the umpire <b>did not see</b> whether or not the batter either offered at or checked on the pitch, the correct mechanic is to call "Ball" only. See OBR 2.00 Definition of A Ball.

Why would anyone make the "no, he didn't go" determination if there was no swing at all, whether checked or otherwise, in their view?

If you were unsighted and <i>suspected</i> a checked swing, even though you didn't see one, you could most certainly ask your partner for help without being asked yourself. BUT you wouldn't call "no, he didn't go" first! That's the same as saying "I saw him check and he didn't offer at the pitch. Partner, did he offer at the pitch?" Not a decisive call by any estimation.

Cheers

I say "Ball. No, he didn't go" on EVERY checked swing. To not do so is equivalent to what umpires used to do back when I started in the 80s -- have secret signals designed to tell your partner that you don't want your call of "Ball" reversed.

We disagree on the appropriate-ness of that, so there's no sense bringing that up.

BTW, I don't see a gray area. At face value, I either see a swing or see a no swing. Strike or ball. But if that bat moves off the shoulder and I determine that the batter hasn't offered, I say "Ball. No, he didn't go."

That doesn't mean I made the correct call by any means. And it doesn't remove the responsibility of me quickly appealing that pitch when the outcome of that appeal and the timeliness of it could affect the game.

Then again, I've never been bothered with base umpires reversing the ball call to a strike call. To me, it's always just been part of the game.

Rich

The fact that you "don't see" IS the gray area! Well, more like a "black" area really. :)

So you admit that you have made a determination that the batter didn't offer. My point was: what about those occasions when you made no determination at all? Maybe you were unsighted by the catcher. Maybe you had your eyes shut. Maybe you were so focused on the path of the pitch that you lost the batter entirely from your field of focus (you did say that is why you believe the PU isn't in the best position to call check swings, didn't you?).

On THOSE occasions the correct mechanic is to call "<i>Ball</i>" only. In that case how could you reasonably add "<i>no, he didn't go</i>", so making a determination, when you actually <b>saw</b> nothing? NOW, therefore, you <i>still</i> have not 1 but 2 mechanics in play anyway! Thus the means for any intended elimination of so-called "<i>secret signals</i>" is already defeated by reality!

From there, Rich, it is merely a short step into the light to use the mechanic "<i>Ball; no, he didn't go</i>" only when you have decided the batter clearly didn't offer, and "<i>Ball</i>" alone when unsighted or you aren't sure either way. Leave the Dark Side and come join us in the Light, mate. :D

Happy checking.

Cheers

I agree 98% with Rich. With a two-strike count and the ball in the dirt (especially one that eludes the catcher) you should automatically appeal to BU. After further review of Warren's comments I think adding the No He didn't go complicates the situation. I still think far too many umpires do not verbalize "BALL". Verbalizing works far better and I think results in calling more strikes. You can pause without someone being "surprised" by a subsequent strike call.

Porterisian
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

On THOSE occasions the correct mechanic is to call "<i>Ball</i>" only. In that case how could you reasonably add "<i>no, he didn't go</i>", so making a determination, when you actually <b>saw</b> nothing? NOW, therefore, you <i>still</i> have not 1 but 2 mechanics in play anyway! Thus the means for any intended elimination of so-called "<i>secret signals</i>" is already defeated by reality! From there, Rich, it is merely a short step into the light to use the mechanic "<i>Ball; no, he didn't go</i>" only when you have decided the batter clearly didn't offer, and "<i>Ball</i>" alone when unsighted or you aren't sure either way. Leave the Dark Side and come join us in the Light, mate. :D Happy checking. Cheers

Warren;

As I have explained before, it is now a violation of extablished NCAA umpire policy for umpires to vary their calls on a check swing so as to send a message to the BU. More specifically, it is not taught that way in pro school either. Only "Smittys" in the USA and umpires down under still engage in this sort of chicanery.

Almost all umpires that I know doing NCAA ball say "Ball" for a check swing (or no swing) when the ball is not in the strike zone. The " no he did not go" part has been eliminated from the vocabaulary of NCAA and experienced minor league umpires. A few of the single A umpires still use this mechanic because it has been taught in the pro schools. However, the pro school umpires are taught to say that each time the batter even flinches a bat, no matter how minor. The may NOT say "no he did not go" on one check swing and just "ball" on another. Whatever way they choose must be the same way each and every time.

Since it is easier and less controversial to just say "ball", that is what most experienced umpires have defaulted to.

Your continued efforts to distort, deliberately misinterpret, and pick apart others writings on this subject is not helpful. (It almost Porterisian.) Get over it. Australia is behind the times. Quit trying to teach archaic mechanics to American umpires that will only get them in trouble with the big dogs.

I'm sorry about the Porter comment but I just could not help it. That was totally unfair on my part. :)

Peter

Bainer;

I check without being asked all the time at the highest levels of NCAA ball. (See my article on this of three weeks ago on the paid part of this site.)

One thing, I never do is say "no he did not go." That is now verboten in good baseball. The correct call when the ball is not in the strike zone and you don't think that the batter swung is "Ball." Don't add anything else. That is the way that top level umpires north of the equator call the game.

Peter

Re: Porterisian
 

Peter, you're obsessed. I'm flattered.

Rhubarb...
 

Ok, let's deal with your assertions one at a time:<ul><li>Putting Australian officials in the same category as US "Smittys"? Brrrrrrtttt!!!! :p<p><li>"<i>...distort, deliberately misinterpret, and pick apart others writings ...</i>" - you're just trying to light my wick, aren't ya? Well, I ain't gonna give ya' the satisfaction! Brrrrrrttttt!!! :p<p><li>"<i>Quit trying to teach archaic mechanics...</i>"? Ok, that one needs an answer besides "<i>Brrrrrrtttt!!!</i> :p". See below.</ul>You are again operating from the basis of a false assumption, Peter: namely that the <i>new</i> mechanic is necessarily the <i>better</i> mechanic. Fact is, all the new mechanic appears to do is to appease the whining coaches and managers who believed they were being "cheated" out of <b><i>their</i></b> "right" to a "fair" appeal on a check swing. The trouble with <i>their</i> reasoning is that the whole check swing appeal process first arose as a concession to the UMPIRE, to seek help on his judgement call IF <b><i>he</i></b> felt he needed to do so.

Since 1976, though, we've been cow-towing to those whining coaches DEMANDING that we check every time they want a second opinion - especially if they've noticed that Smitty is on the line and they feel their chances of a result are commensurately better. It's just another way for coaches to try to control umpires who quite properly ought to be above and beyond their control for the good of the game.

IOW, Pete, the check swing appeal is just a packet of pi$$ that shouldn't even be in the rules anymore to begin with!<ol><li>It's the ONLY umpire's judgement decision that can <b>legally</b> be appealed
(<i>Oh, erk! Here comes BFair agin! Better get the <b>SOK</b> ready.</i> :) )<p><li>It's the ONLY appeal without any rule-based time limit on its expiry.<p><li>It's an anachronism that ASSUMES that the base coach is better placed to see the check swing - that's 70's thinking only shared by Rich Fronheiser and a few others these days. The PBUC has long since determined differently. Trust the NCAA to foster a movement against that sensible view in favour of the whining coaches. They don't call balks any more in NCAA either, do they? ;)</ol>Frankly I'm perfectly HAPPY that Australia hasn't yet followed the NCAA "lead" on this issue. I'll sincerely regret the day that they do. Until then, I'll continue to "espouse" - rather than "teach" - any damn mechanic I like! Like everyone else on this board and elsewhere, please feel free to ignore that if it isn't to your liking.

Oh, and before anyone gets the WRONG IDEA from this purely TEXT message, NO I am NOT angry simply because I have chosen to use a few BOLD words to emphasise the occasional point. Peter is obviously looking to fire up a discussion. I believe my response points out that the same objective can be achieved without resorting to insults - even the good natured ones that Peter seldom uses. :D

Cheers