D3K, Check Swing Appeal

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jr131981

i dont understand this theory.... lets recap, the batter has 2 strikes, and tries to check her swing, the PU incorrectly rules it a ball, and now the PU is not supposed to get the call right by going to his partner bc a certain length of time has expired? doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of having umpires, to get the calls right?

how about the BR was put in danger bc she swung the bat, the umps are supposed to protect her from danger?

OK... 2 strikes. Batter tries to check and the ball gets past the catcher. Rolls around a while. Catcher retrieves, throws to pitcher ... and THEN appeals.

[IRISHMAFIA]

What some people overlook, except in NCAA or another org with similar mechanic, is that an umpre should go for help when the umpire believes it is possible some element of the play could have been missed, not because a coach asks you to get help. If you have no doubt that you saw the every element of the play and rendered the proper decision, it is not inappropriate to respectfully decline. If asked, just tell the coach you saw the play/swing and made the appropriate ruling. And, yes, I know a check swing isn't the easiest thing to see, but sometimes it is a no brainer.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

OK... 2 strikes. Batter tries to check and the ball gets past the catcher. Rolls around a while. Catcher retrieves, throws to pitcher ... and THEN appeals.

assuming the appeal is going to be ruled a swing, this means the batter swung her bat, theoretically, far enough to be consider a strike. this if there was any doubt in her mind, she should run to 1B.

what im saying is, why the need to protect the batter who 1) swung and 2) made no effort to run to 1B when there is no downside to running

[tcannizzo]

ummm because PU called Ball?

[SRW]

You're all over thinking this.

x-2 count, she checks, and F2 drops the ball?

Just ring her up and be done with it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jr131981

assuming the appeal is going to be ruled a swing, this means the batter swung her bat, theoretically, far enough to be consider a strike. this if there was any doubt in her mind, she should run to 1B.

what im saying is, why the need to protect the batter who 1) swung and 2) made no effort to run to 1B when there is no downside to running

I'm not sure what bothers me more - your dogged determination to "win the argument" or the implication that in this OBVIOUS situation it sounds like you'd still honor the appeal that late (notably the exact opposite of what I've personally heard in many different levels of clinics, for several years).

Holding the batter to the standard of running every time you call ball on a check swing that hits the ground is not a good idea (especially in the case listed here).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

or the implication that in this OBVIOUS situation it sounds like you'd still honor the appeal that late (notably the exact opposite of what I've personally heard in many different levels of clinics, for several years).

I have never attended a clinic where I have been directed or even suggested to refuse a check swing appeal based on when it was made (other than before the next pitch). Nor could I justify that reasoning.

Our job is to call the game; the game they play, no matter how well or badly they play it. If the batter swings, and we miss it, and they appeal it, then we answer what they did. The entire reason the check swing appeal even exists is recognition that the plate umpire does NOT have the best view when tracking a pitch, as should be done. The base umpire has a better angle, and makes the call when asked by the plate umpire.

We didn't put the batter in jeopardy; the swing and subsequent appeal did. Definition of appeal: "A play on which an umpire may not make a decision until asked".

To decide to refuse to honor a legitimate appeal that you WOULD honor with one strike, only because the dropped third strike rule would apply with two strikes, is total BS in my opinion.

[topper]

On a D3K and a checked swing, I'm going for help immediately to minimize any confusion caused by a delay. That's what I was taught. It makes sense paricularly in NCAA play, but I do at all levels. Of course I check when asked at all levels too. I've never understood why a PU wouldn't.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

On a D3K and a checked swing, I'm going for help immediately to minimize any confusion caused by a delay. That's what I was taught. It makes sense paricularly in NCAA play, but I do at all levels.

So, if the batter moves the bat, you are going to the BU every time it isn't a full swing?

Of course I check when asked at all levels too. I've never understood why a PU wouldn't.

So, if you see an definite check swing, you are going to go just to placate the coach?

I'm not suggesting an umpire not go for help if there is a question, but questioning why the umpire would go if s/he believes they ($.02 to Dakota) saw the entire situation and there was nothing to miss.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, if the batter moves the bat, you are going to the BU every time it isn't a full swing?.

In a D3K situation, yes.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, if you see an definite check swing, you are going to go just to placate the coach?.

Who said anything about placating anyone? 95% of my games are played under rules that require me to go when asked. I do it in the other 5% partly out of habit, partly because I don't see a down side to it.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...but questioning why the umpire would go if s/he believes...

I'm probably just as confident as the next person about trusting my judgement, but believing is not knowing. We all know there are situations where we may not have the best view of things. A possible checked swing is one of them. I'm curious to hear your general or specific reason not to check if asked.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I have never attended a clinic where I have been directed or even suggested to refuse a check swing appeal based on when it was made (other than before the next pitch). Nor could I justify that reasoning.

Our job is to call the game; the game they play, no matter how well or badly they play it. If the batter swings, and we miss it, and they appeal it, then we answer what they did. The entire reason the check swing appeal even exists is recognition that the plate umpire does NOT have the best view when tracking a pitch, as should be done. The base umpire has a better angle, and makes the call when asked by the plate umpire.

We didn't put the batter in jeopardy; the swing and subsequent appeal did. Definition of appeal: "A play on which an umpire may not make a decision until asked".

To decide to refuse to honor a legitimate appeal that you WOULD honor with one strike, only because the dropped third strike rule would apply with two strikes, is total BS in my opinion.

Understood (and in my game this is moot - I'm asking my partner immediately in this sitch). However, is not the appeal to ask your partner for help just exactly the same as any other appeal to ask your partner for help? In ANY other situation, if you were asked to confer with partner and it resulted in a changed call, you would rectify the situation with ANY runners that were disadvantaged by the initial call. The clinics I'm referring to are using this same logic. In this situation, had the correct call been made (or the appeal been made immediately), the batter would have easily made 1st base on his own. But solely because of the delayed nature of the overturned call, he's screwed. And that is wrong.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Understood (and in my game this is moot - I'm asking my partner immediately in this sitch). However, is not the appeal to ask your partner for help just exactly the same as any other appeal to ask your partner for help? In ANY other situation, if you were asked to confer with partner and it resulted in a changed call, you would rectify the situation with ANY runners that were disadvantaged by the initial call. The clinics I'm referring to are using this same logic. In this situation, had the correct call been made (or the appeal been made immediately), the batter would have easily made 1st base on his own. But solely because of the delayed nature of the overturned call, he's screwed. And that is wrong.

Except that the very nature of an appeal is, by definition, a delayed call.

Try this one. R1 misses 2nd on the way to 3rd; ball is thrown into the dugout. R1 doesn't retrace and retouch 2nd, so umpire awards home.

Defense then appeals that R1 missed 2nd. Do you now refuse to honor the appeal because the defense waited, and the offense failed to retrace to touch? Do you accept the argument by OC that R1 WOULD have retraced had you announced what you might rule if appealed, or started the appeal before it actually was appealed, and that the delay in the appeal is now a delayed or reversed call where you must protect R1?

Tell me what the difference is, then (assuming you have the answers I expect). In both cases, the offense is in jeopardy because of an act by the offense. In both cases, the "appeal" is a delayed act. In which case do we refuse to rule?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Tell me what the difference is, then (assuming you have the answers I expect). In both cases, the offense is in jeopardy because of an act by the offense. In both cases, the "appeal" is a delayed act. In which case do we refuse to rule?

This is very much a different "appeal". In your example, the offense transgressed and the umpire makes NO CALL. The appeal is to the umpire - not to overturn a call but to rule on whether the offense did, in fact, transgress. In the other, the umpire HAS made a call - the appeal is more similar to asking your partner if he had a pulled foot or missed on a swipe tag - asking for more information from your partner in order to change your call. And in ANY of those situations, if someone (either side) was disadvantaged by the changed call - we rectify it (and, by rule, are required to do so!).

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm not sure what bothers me more - your dogged determination to "win the argument" or the implication that in this OBVIOUS situation it sounds like you'd still honor the appeal that late (notably the exact opposite of what I've personally heard in many different levels of clinics, for several years).

Holding the batter to the standard of running every time you call ball on a check swing that hits the ground is not a good idea (especially in the case listed here).

i must apologize, for whatever reason, the way i was envisioning the play in my head, i didnt realize the PU is calling a ball and not going for help right away.

EDIT: if the PU thinks the swing wasnt close enough to warrant going for help in the first place, i dont see why they would go for help once asked by the C or DC