Of course. That's what I said.

It is not a secret signal. It's the same method (and for the same reason) you state below:I hate to break this to you Rich, but apparently you agree with me.

That's even better. When good umpires (the ones I read as good from posting on the Internet) disagree with me, I wonder what I could be missing. Apparently nothing. :D

Honestly, Dash - I read your post the same way Rich did... you did NOT say the same thing he did.

You said your communication with your partner ("no, he didn't go") should change the level of scrutiny your partner gives his call -- he'd better see a full swing if he'd going to over-rule your initial call.

That's NOT the mechanic... and it's quite the opposite from what Rich said.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt -- I'll let him elaborate.

Rich said: "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.

I said: "If he wants to change my call, that's fine with me."

I don't see a big difference.

Rich said: "I've been saying "Ball; No, he didn't go" since I started umpiring in the 1980s...To me, it's communicating that I saw the bat move and, in my judgment, the batter didn't offer.

I said: "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."

I don't see a big difference here either.

I said nothing about a signal to my partner about how I expected him to act. Once I go to him on the appeal, it's his call, and as I said, whatever he has is fine with me.

Perhaps where it went south was this: "but (as BU) I would have to see pretty much a full swing before I would consider ringing it up."

No big deal though.

+1

Except for FED.