Unusual dropped third strike

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you want to take the position in the reversed check swing call that the original call of BALL did NOT unnaturally place the BR in jeopardy due only to the umpire's call (and not the player's play), then fine.

However, that is not the position that WMB is taking. You may not agree with it, but what I don't understand is, why his position is hard to understand?

Then you don't understand my position. My position is simply that doing our job, making a call that is, by its very nature, subject to an appeal, isn't putting the BR in jeopardy. The batter either swung, or not; we are directed to call it a nonswing and appeal if we are unsure. The result of that appeal is the result of the batter's actions.

What I don't understand is why an umpire I respect thinks that we shouldn't allow that appeal, that doing our job as prescribed should be ignored. Why he would take a position that supercedes what I consider the prime directive; to get it right, within the rules and mechanics for softball umpires. I hear his argument; since it is clear to me, at least, that allowing the appeal is appropriate, and that the batter's actions are the basis of jeopardy, or not, not the umpire doing his job, I don't get how he is stuck on that. Or that doing the job as expected is expected, not stopping to worry about how doing it right might contribute to one team winning or losing. That isn't jeopardy, or 10-3-C; we do our job.

At least, that seems clear to me.

[justmom]

It was a varsity game, so the defense should have known better. The pitch was well out of the strike zone (high), and the batter obviously checked hard. The PU called "ball", and the batter didn't even know the pitch had been dropped when the defense asked for the appeal. I'm not sure who was hollering for the appeal, but I think the only three (maybe four) people in the game who knew the ball was dropped were the catcher, the offensive coach, the plate umpire, (and maybe the base umpire). I can understand WMB's logic. A batter wouldn't normally run on a called ball, and in this case I don't think anyone (including the defense) really thought the base umpire would overrule this call. Also, I have to wonder...if the batter would have taken off running on the check swing (just in case it might have been a dropped third strike on appeal) would this have influenced both umpires into a mindset that if the batter thought it was a swing and a strike and is running, well then, it must have been? Who would honestly call the runner back and insist that they couldn't run on a check swing?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by justmom

Also, I have to wonder...if the batter would have taken off running on the check swing (just in case it might have been a dropped third strike on appeal) would this have influenced both umpires into a mindset that if the batter thought it was a swing and a strike and is running, well then, it must have been? Who would honestly call the runner back and insist that they couldn't run on a check swing?

Interesting question. I have my mind made up when I call the pitch at the plate and when I see the batter's action with the bat, so subsequent activity would not be a factor. Actually, I usually click my indicator for a strike when I see the check swing as an offer, recording my judgement (to myself) for when my PU partner asks for help.