D3K, Check Swing Appeal
 

I am sure this has been discussed more than once, but I have no recollection of it.

Aside from it being an awkward situation, any thoughts on handling this situation differently than too sad, too bad?

0-2 count on B.
Pitch comes in low.
Batter tries to check swing.
PU calls BALL.
C asks PU to appeal check swing.
BU says YES!

C simply tags B, or throws to 1B for an easy out.
Here comes OC.

(This is hypothetical as it did not occur in any of my games)

Not sure how else you can handle it unless you decide on every possibly third strike in the dirt you are automatically going to go to your partner. Its the offenses responsiblity to run on a D3K if they think there is even a possibility they may have swung.

I had almost the exact opposite situation the other night. Working a solo game, pitch is in dirt and batter starts to swing but holds up well short. She takes off for 1st, catcher throws her out easily. I announce I had no attempt at the pitch and call her back, then I get to talk with defensive coach.

Give OC his say, thank him for his input and return to your position behind the plate.

I have heard two schools of thought on this situation:

1. Refuse the request for help and go with the PU call. This is fine in ASA and NFHS, where the umpire is not required to honor the request. It can make you appear as a hard-a** umpire, however and lead to issues later in the game.

2. Don't wait for the request and immediately go to BU for help on the check swing. You may still have a batter standing there in the box who can easily be put out with a tag or throw to first, but at least PU did not contribute to the delay by waiting for a request for help.

I prefer option 2, but it can be an awkward situation either way.

I know this is a stupid thing to say, but catchers should be coached to tag the runner BEFORE asking for help on a checked swing. If they think the batter may have checked her swing, she has to make a play anyway. Make it easy - tag her first and ask for help on the checked swing second. If there are runners on base, get the ball into the circle before asking the PU for help on the swing to prevent runners from advancing while you are standing there with the ball waiting for an answer from the base ump.

Personally, I don't accept Option 1 as viable or appropriate. It is our job to call what the players do, not hide from that call because it may be difficult. If the batter didn't check, the defense is fully entitled to that call. I don't see any way around that.

And, if the checked swing appeal wasn't part of the game, well, there wouldn't be rules about it, there wouldn't be a mechanic (remove mask, step out, etc.); it wouldn't be part of the game. But, it is part of the game, and our job is to call what the players do, and rule on an appeal when made.

So, sorry Coach; I'm not asking for a checked swing anytime there is a pitch with two strikes, and I AM going to grant the appeal by the catcher any time I think she isn't making a mockery by appealing when the batter didn't even flinch. IF it is questionable to ME, then my mechanic is to "ball" it and let my partner make the decision, and I will most often not wait for the catcher in that case; but the decision to run or not run when she considers she MAY be in jeopardy is between you and your batter. That's coaching; I umpire.

Good! :)

Yet we all know umpires who simply won't call the strike if catcher (or PU) doesn't ask immediately, no matter the count or sitch. OTOH - clinicians have said before not to honor this appeal with 2 strikes if it's made so late that the BR was put in undue danger because of the delay.

Tag first, yes.

Throw to pitcher and THEN appeal? Not a good plan.

The tag has to be there too - tag, return to pitcher, appeal.

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.

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.

like

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

ummm because PU called Ball?

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.


:eek:

;)

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 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.

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.

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?

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!).

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

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.

In a D3K situation, yes.

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.

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.

If I saw it beyond doubt, other than to placate a coach, why should I go for help? I'm not talking about anything questionable. I'm referring to an absolutely no doubt about it situation.

In some circumstances, it has become too routine at the plate and in the field to demand an umpire ask for help, sometimes to the point of becoming a fishing expedition. Requesting an umpire ask for help should be taken seriously and that just isn't always the case.

Saw a game last year where the catcher refused to ask and just told the coach she didn't go. Coach was miffed, but if the catcher realized there was no swing, what the hell was the coach looking at or doing when telling her to ask?

I understand when required and I don't refute that any umpire working under that banner should without hesitation follow the prescribed protocol. And I'm not suggesting umpires not ask for help just because they do not have to ask. I'm simply stating that going for help shouldn't become the norm just because someone asked, but because it is possible, even remotely, that the umpire missed an element of the swing/play.

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