Far too much speculation on how people are instructed. I ejected someone in a World Series (Senior Baseball -- kid drew a line -- it was the third ejection in that tournament in 11 years) and I umpired a regional that had 6 games on ESPN (I worked 3 of those games) and received no such instruction. Trust me when I say that if we would've had an ejectable offense present itself to me, I would not have hesitated to umpire the way I always umpire.

While I've not been at WP as an umpire, I am close friends with 2 guys who have -- they received no such instruction and were not told how to call balls and strikes, either.

The only umpire I know personally was the guy that worked the International Final -- I have no clue whatsoever how he didn't get the championship plate, but that happens all the time in these tourneys. Umpiring ability isn't always the number one reason assignments are made as they are. I know from personal experience.

I added the rolleyes to imply that mostly I'd been watching the umpire work and, "Oh - there's a GAME, too". Jeez - I can't even use rolleyes correctly.

JJ

PS Do you have ANY friends?

You misspelled "is never"

Doesn't saying "ball" cover it? That would, after all, be the definition of "ball."

We don't say, "out, fielder had possession of the ball while in contact with the base prior to the forced runner contacting the base."

Which way were you affected....didn't get an assignment you deserved or got an assignment you didn't deserve?

Maybe the other guy that got the champ plate gig was deserving just as much as your friend. C'mon, it's not always "politics" in these tourneys as many people would have you believe. We need to quit perpetuating the sour grapes mentality when we don't get the assignments of our liking and lets be gracious and congratulate the ones that do...and be humble when we get the ones we may be surprised by of our own.

It covers it in the same way as just calling a runner "safe" at first base even though the ball beat him by two steps and the first baseman pulled his foot. In both cases, you have a call and an extra piece of information that saves or at least redirects the followup.

This is not the professional teaching, unless it changed recently.

And besides, in OBR/NCAA you *must* go for help when asked, regardless of what you say on the check swing.

It communicates that I saw the bat move and that I judged it wasn't enough to consider it an offer.

I'm amazed at how many people act as if this isn't mainstream. This is the passage directly from the PBUC manual:

"All decisions on checked swings shall be called loudly and clearly by the plate umpire. If the pitch is a ball and the batter does not swing at the pitch, the mechanic to be used by the plate umpire is: "Ball; No he didn't go." If the pitch is a ball but the batter commits on the check swing, the mechanic to be used is: "Yes, he went," while pointing directly at the batter and then coming up with the strike motion."

I think that it is a poor and unnecessary mechanic. In the very least, it is an overused and abused mechanic.

Define a checked swing for us. Not that I would use the LLWS umpires as a benchmark, but they were saying "Yes, he did" on "checked swings" where the batter clearly went. If there is a follow through, regardless of how weak it is, it's not a checked swing. A checked swing would require opposite torque in an effort not to complete the swing, no?

This is a bit of apples and oranges, or at least two different types of apples.

On a pulled foot, you're saying that, "but for the pulled foot, the runner would have been out." It's also communicating something that not everyone may have seen.

When you say "ball" it means that the pitch didn't enter the strike zone and, in the very least, you don't believe the batter swung. When you say, "ball, no he didn't," you are definitively stating that the batter did not swing. To me, there is a huge difference. As a coach, if the base umpire then said, "yes, he swung" I would go out and say to the plate umpire, "you said he didn't swing and the base umpire said he did swing, so now we're at 50/50. So why is it a swing?" If he says, "well, I wasn't sure if he swung," I would say, "then why did you specifically and definitively stated, "no swing?" Then I would likely either hear "they told me to" or I hear crickets chirping.

And yet I sometimes see in MLB games where the PU won't go to a partner after the catcher asks. What is taught and what is practiced isn't always the same.

It just made sense to me when I heard it. If you must go for help when asked, then don't bother with anything more than "Ball" so that you're not opening the door to potential comments over your judgment. And it falls in line with the philosophy of one umpire not overruling another. You say, "No he didn't," and then your partner says, "Yes, he did," just sounds like two siblings pointing fingers over a broken vase. :p

He shouldn't say that - he should say "By rule, plate umpires are to ask for help from the base umpire when asked on a checked swing, at which point the call becomes the base umpire's call." Done.

If I am 100% sure about a non-swing, I will - confidently - verbalize it. "Ball -no swing!" or something similar. I am telling my partner (pre-gamed) that I had a real good look at it, and I'm sure he didn't go. If he wants to change my call, that's fine with me, but (as BU) I would have to see pretty much a full swing before I would consider ringing it up.

As for the coach coming out, the response is simple: "We're not discussing balls and strikes."

I'll go with the professionals on this one.

You could pregame this with me till the cows come home -- once you come to me, it's now my call to make -- and I'll do it the way I always do -- I make an instant judgment on every check swing and if the PU comes to me, he gets exactly what I have.

Your method smells too much like the secret signals of the 1980s where the plate guy would tell the base umpire what he wanted him to call. Quite frankly, I'm delighted every time the base umpire calls a strike on a check swing:

(1) I like strikes.
(2) If there's heat, it's all on him, not me.

I've been saying "Ball; No, he didn't go" since I started umpiring in the 1980s. I've never, not at any level, had a single coach say anything to me or my partner on this mechanic whatsoever.

To me, it's communicating that I saw the bat move and, in my judgment, the batter didn't offer. It's not much different than a foul tip mechanic -- at times it's completely unnecessary (full swing, for example) -- but at times it's useful (on a check swing foul tip). At times, I think me saying, No, he didn't go" dissuades a catcher/coach from asking and I'm not unhappy when that happens. When they ask anyway, I'm happy to ask my partner (and even more thrilled when he rings up the strike).