Double swing

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

It's not a swing.

There. Yelling it makes me feel better. Mike is right...we did discuss this ad nauseum, and I'm about to be nauseum again. If that means I have to go to Delaware, then so be it.

No way ya vulture.

I'm gonna google it up this weekend and maybe see if I can take a looksee at it.. maybe I'll change my mind, especially with mike playing hardball with his umpire slots.

I've had my heart set on Delaware since I found out it never gets above 12F and only stops snowing enough to rain. Plus I really enjoy contaminated water and 5 legged dogs.

[mcrowder]

Not a swing. Actions in OP are legal. Why is this coming up again - didn't we resolve this recently?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

No way ya vulture.

I'm gonna google it up this weekend and maybe see if I can take a looksee at it.. maybe I'll change my mind, especially with mike playing hardball with his umpire slots.

I've had my heart set on Delaware since I found out it never gets above 12F and only stops snowing enough to rain. Plus I really enjoy contaminated water and 5 legged dogs.

And this from someone who lives in a state where people build houses on cliffs and hillsides only to have them slide into the ocean or valley after a good rain and then are dumb enough to rebuild on the same site. A state which does not allow people to enter forests to clear naturally downed timber and then cannot figure out what stokes the horrendous fires which kill people and causes billions of dollars in lost property. A state which will not permit the building of power plants and then cannot figure out why there is an energy issue.

Back to point, check out page 221 of ASA Umpire Manual. Under the "check swing" is the closest thing I can find to define what ASA believes to be a swing. #2 states "swinging through the ball and bringing or drawing the bat back, unless drawing it back before the pitch gets to the bat.

I read this as saying that it IS a swing, but only if the ball was actually there for the bat to strike.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I read this as saying that it IS a swing, but only if the ball was actually there for the bat to strike.

Come on, Mr. ASA - you are denying what your own people have written. Someone somewhere in ASA heirarchy deliberately wrote that it is illegal to hit the ball on a second swing. There has to be a reason (does there really?) for ASA to write that statement.

On a 60 mph pitch that reaches the plate in less than a half second, there is no way in hell that a batter can wait until "the ball was actually there for the bat to strike" and swing twice and actually hit the ball. Obviously, the swing has to start early so as to get the bat around a second time. Fact is, the bat swing has to start before the pitch is even released.

And if the batter is really good enough to hit the ball on the second swing, ASA says that is illegal - strike on the batter and return base runners.

WBM

[Dakota]

Second "swing".... not second time the bat is moved. There is no requirement for the bat to remain stationary before the first swing.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Second "swing".... not second time the bat is moved. There is no requirement for the bat to remain stationary before the first swing.

I agree, Dakota.
Preliminary swings are not swings at a pitch.
Perhaps WMB has merely been fishing, ...I hope.

[WestMichBlue]

You guys are offering your personal opinions, but you are missing my point.

WHY did ASA write that sentence? Why did they say "hit the ball on the second swing?" It is impossible to wait for the ball to reach a hitable zone and then swing twice. So what is ASA ruling against?

WMB

[mick]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You guys are offering your personal opinions, but you are missing my point.

WHY did ASA write that sentence? Why did they say "hit the ball on the second swing?" It is impossible to wait for the ball to reach a hitable zone and then swing twice. So what is ASA ruling against?

WMB

WMB,

A possible scenario:

Waiting for a fastball the size of a pea, the batter makes an offer, but checks when the batter sees a fall-outa-your-umpire-stance change-up the size of a beachball and recocks and offers a second time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You guys are offering your personal opinions, but you are missing my point.

WHY did ASA write that sentence? Why did they say "hit the ball on the second swing?" It is impossible to wait for the ball to reach a hitable zone and then swing twice. So what is ASA ruling against?

WMB

Remember, the rules cover all games, not just FP.

[wadeintothem]

I'm set, pitcher is begining a pitch, catcher is set and she swings.. bringing the bat around and grabbing it with her other hand.

This swing is dismissed as yet another practice swing and the "real" swing is when she bunts.

Conceivably the batter could continuously perform this new Delaware Helicopter Swing and never stop swinging once in the box because until the ball is actually hittable, many dont believe its a swing by rule.

This may be true by reading the rule book.. because at best it is unclear. I can find no reasonable definition of a swing and any alluding to such would not address swinging before the pitch at least is hittable.

But that is a BS method of batting so perhaps ASA needs to address it.

Thats the best I can find with a honest reading.. similar to gorilla gold.. ASA has no rule on it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

But that is a BS method of batting so perhaps ASA needs to address it.

Thats the best I can find with a honest reading.. similar to gorilla gold.. ASA has no rule on it.

ASA does address gorilla gold under the foreign substance portion of rule 7.

Do you suggest that the rules must be changed every time someone comes up with a little gimick? I believe most of the confusion comes from people reading too much into situations.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Do you suggest that the rules must be changed every time someone comes up with a little gimick?

If they want consistancy of interpretation, I would suggest a bit more consistant wording. If they bring confusion to those as studied as the attendees of this board, how can the average rec umpire be expected to properly interpret.

I think ASA should perhaps start by adding "Delaware Helicopter Swing" to the definitions section. (If it was wadeintothem that coined this, kudos.)

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA does address gorilla gold under the foreign substance portion of rule 7.

No, ASA does not address substances that are applied to the hands but will not transfer to the ball... hence the reason when facing Male pitchers, ASA doesnt have the rocks to stick to the rule book.. making it unclear.

Do you suggest that the rules must be changed every time someone comes up with a little gimick? I believe most of the confusion comes from people reading too much into situations.

Why yes, I do. I pay my 40 bucks a year for ASA folks to fly into okieville and do just that. In fact, the new GIMMICKS are far more important to address than changing rules IMO.

In between goofing with batter box sizes, changing wording of rules when ASA doesnt want them enforced differently (but word it differently)... I'm thinking the ASA could squeeze in some time to address these "gimmicks" and clarify unclear things.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Come on, Mr. ASA - you are denying what your own people have written. Someone somewhere in ASA heirarchy deliberately wrote that it is illegal to hit the ball on a second swing. There has to be a reason (does there really?) for ASA to write that statement.

Which has what to do with the point that the issue under discussion is that there wasn't two swings?

On a 60 mph pitch that reaches the plate in less than a half second, there is no way in hell that a batter can wait until "the ball was actually there for the bat to strike" and swing twice and actually hit the ball. Obviously, the swing has to start early so as to get the bat around a second time. Fact is, the bat swing has to start before the pitch is even released.

Thank you for proving the point. How can the initial movement of the bat be considered a swing if the ball hasn't even been released yet?

And if the batter is really good enough to hit the ball on the second swing, ASA says that is illegal - strike on the batter and return base runners.

WBM

Again, this is not the discussion. My part of this discussion has been completely along the premise of what constitutes a swing, not that there was more than one.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And this from someone who lives in a state where people build houses on cliffs and hillsides only to have them slide into the ocean or valley after a good rain and then are dumb enough to rebuild on the same site.

Who cares, makes for cool video.

A state which does not allow people to enter forests to clear naturally downed timber and then cannot figure out what stokes the horrendous fires which kill people and causes billions of dollars in lost property.

Well you've probably never been in a forest, but as someone who has lived in it virtually his entire life including right now.. thats incorrect Mike. Its the undergrowth that the libs snivel about burning off thats the problem, not the downed trees. This layer upon layer of underbrush and growth once it goes causes a raging fire which is enough to catch the trees on fire.. as opposed to a healthy forest where undergrowth should burn without necessarily causing a forest fire.