LLWS - Championship

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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

I'll go with the professionals on this one.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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."

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.

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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).

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

Of course. That's what I said.

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.

It is not a secret signal. It's the same method (and for the same reason) you state below:

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.

I hate to break this to you Rich, but apparently you agree with me.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[dash_riprock]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by md longhorn

no big deal though.

+1