Check Swing Appeal on U3K

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

I'll be honest. I don't know if it is, or not. I'm a baseball guy, as well and I acknowledge I'm borrowing this from baseball.

What makes sense to me is not allow the defense to get a "cheap out" by tracking down the ball, having the catcher return to the plate near the batter, then ask for an appeal so she can make the easy tag out if it turns out to be a DK3.

While we have the right to rectify a situation where an overturned call puts a team at a distinct disadvantage, that doesn't mean you're not going to wind up with a very ugly situation if you have to start placing runners on a late check with your partner. Why not avoid it and have this situation played under a more organic circumstance by asking for help right away?

The only other "fair" thing to do here might be to disallow the "appeal". However, some codes do not allow you to not go for help.

Who says it is a cheap out? Did the defense not offer the batter the opportunity to put the ball in play? In some circumstances, does the batter not attempt and fail to put the ball into play?

While people want to hold the defense accountable here, it is the batter who placed herself in jeopardy, no one else. If there is anything cheap here, it would be awarding a runner to a team that did nothing to deserve such an award.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Who says it is a cheap out? Did the defense not offer the batter the opportunity to put the ball in play? In some circumstances, does the batter not attempt and fail to put the ball into play?

While people want to hold the defense accountable here, it is the batter who placed herself in jeopardy, no one else. If there is anything cheap here, it would be awarding a runner to a team that did nothing to deserve such an award.

True for the most part. However... on a play where the ball got seriously away from the catcher, and it's obvious the batter runner would have achieved first had the appealled swing happened immediately (or a play where the swing was more obvious and the PU called it), then we have to put that batter runner on base.

I agree that the "norm" here, or the default, should simply be an out.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

True for the most part. However... on a play where the ball got seriously away from the catcher, and it's obvious the batter runner would have achieved first had the appealled swing happened immediately (or a play where the swing was more obvious and the PU called it), then we have to put that batter runner on base.

I agree that the "norm" here, or the default, should simply be an out.

Not obvious to me at all. Batter put herself in jeopardy. If "ball got seriously away from the catcher, and it's obvious the batter runner would have achieved first", then she is further responsible for failing to advance on her own volition.

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would award a batter 1st base on a D3K where she didn't run.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would award a batter 1st base on a D3K where she didn't run.

That seems surprising to me. She didn't think she swung the bat, so she didn't run. You can't hold it against her that she didn't think she swung, given that YOU didn't think she swung either. If you say there is no circumstance where you would give her first on a play like this - you are giving an advantage to the defense - because if she DOES run, then the defense gets to see, first, whether they will be able to get her out at first before they have to decide if they are going to appeal the check swing. In your world, the batter runner can NEVER achieve first base on a pitch that PU doesn't call a swing - because if she does, the defense will simply not appeal. This is a disadvantage to the batter on any potential 3rd strike pitch where the swing is borderline and you don't call it a swing - a disadvantage not intended by the rules.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That seems surprising to me. She didn't think she swung the bat, so she didn't run. You can't hold it against her that she didn't think she swung, given that YOU didn't think she swung either. If you say there is no circumstance where you would give her first on a play like this - you are giving an advantage to the defense - because if she DOES run, then the defense gets to see, first, whether they will be able to get her out at first before they have to decide if they are going to appeal the check swing. In your world, the batter runner can NEVER achieve first base on a pitch that PU doesn't call a swing - because if she does, the defense will simply not appeal. This is a disadvantage to the batter on any potential 3rd strike pitch where the swing is borderline and you don't call it a swing - a disadvantage not intended by the rules.

So, if the runner achieves first and the OC asks you to ask your partner if it's a swing so she can stay you'd say no? Had a game a couple weeks ago where the girl got to first on a dropped strike two. OC tried to convince me that she'd swung at the first pitch in the series that I called a ball

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

So, if the runner achieves first and the OC asks you to ask your partner if it's a swing so she can stay you'd say no? Had a game a couple weeks ago where the girl got to first on a dropped strike two. OC tried to convince me that she'd swung at the first pitch in the series that I called a ball

Rolling eyes at me? Odd, considering I didn't say anything you seem to be implying and am actually arguing the reverse. (If you're rolling eyes at the coach ... no, I'm not going to my partner if asked by the OC.)

To clarify - I'm in the school that says on a close swing that may be strike three and happens to get away from the catcher, I'm asking my partner RIGHT THEN. This clears ALL of the situations up that have been discussed here. Not asking causes one team or the other to be disadvantaged - in some cases to the point that we then have to deal with the fact that the rules tell us to rectify a situation that is caused by an umpire's erroneous or changed call. If we ask for help, unprompted, right then, the players can play it out - and we NEVER have to fix a situation caused by a changed call.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Rolling eyes at me? Odd, considering I didn't say anything you seem to be implying and am actually arguing the reverse. (If you're rolling eyes at the coach ... no, I'm not going to my partner if asked by the OC.)

To clarify - I'm in the school that says on a close swing that may be strike three and happens to get away from the catcher, I'm asking my partner RIGHT THEN. This clears ALL of the situations up that have been discussed here. Not asking causes one team or the other to be disadvantaged - in some cases to the point that we then have to deal with the fact that the rules tell us to rectify a situation that is caused by an umpire's erroneous or changed call. If we ask for help, unprompted, right then, the players can play it out - and we NEVER have to fix a situation caused by a changed call.

No, I wasn't rolling my eyes at you. My question to you was serious, if a strike became advantageous would you let an offensive coach ask for a swing. I think I would but I've never had it happen. You say no to that above, if so what would you tell him. That only the defense can ask?
I was rolling my eyes at the coach who wanted me to call a strike on the first pitch of the at bat. Sorry it wasn't more clear.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

So, if the runner achieves first and the OC asks you to ask your partner if it's a swing so she can stay you'd say no?

I was going to say absolutely. But going back through the NFHS rule book and case book, I cannot find anything that says requests for help on a checked swing can only be done by the defense.

I have an old e-copy of the ASA Rule Book, and it only mentions in a rule supplement that the catcher requests for help. But it doesn't specifically prohibit the offense from doing so. I'll have to reference the latest ASA rule book when I get home to see if there's something more definitive.

As for the NCAA, the rule book does allow either the offense or defense to ask for help, under rule 11.13.5. But it also says the umpire may (but not shall) ask for help.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That seems surprising to me. She didn't think she swung the bat, so she didn't run. You can't hold it against her that she didn't think she swung, given that YOU didn't think she swung either. If you say there is no circumstance where you would give her first on a play like this - you are giving an advantage to the defense - because if she DOES run, then the defense gets to see, first, whether they will be able to get her out at first before they have to decide if they are going to appeal the check swing. In your world, the batter runner can NEVER achieve first base on a pitch that PU doesn't call a swing - because if she does, the defense will simply not appeal. This is a disadvantage to the batter on any potential 3rd strike pitch where the swing is borderline and you don't call it a swing - a disadvantage not intended by the rules.

So you give a free base to the batter that did swing, in the judgment of the base umpire, whether the PU called it first or not, when she 1) did swing at the pitch, 2) has to know she is at least borderline and in possible jeopardy, 3) doesn't run to protect herself against being called out. So she has no accountability for these three failures.

Yet, you would award this base because the defense sinned by (what, exactly)?? The catcher not catching the pitch the batter struck out on (the most common are balls in the dirt, 42' drops or changeups, and high rises; they fooled the batter, and now you make the catcher accountable??), and not appealing before they complete playing the ball (why would they; if the batter isn't running, no reason on their part to ask yet)?

This makes the best argument for a base umpire to NEVER call it a swing, because the result is WAY worse than "missing" the swing. Because I see your argument as giving an unintended and undeserved award to the batter who struck out, and did nothing to protect herself. This is as inconceivable to me as unringing the incorrect "foul ball" bell.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where I would award a batter 1st base on a D3K where she didn't run.

So what about NFHS Case Book play 10.2.3.G? In that play, the batter assumes she received Ball Four, and casually trots to first base, allowing F2 to retrieve the ball and throw to F3 before the batter gets there. F2 then requests that the PU check with the BU on the checked swing, and the BU rules that the batter did offer. The ruling allows for the PU to award the batter first if he/she judges the batter would have reached it.

How is that any different? In this case play, the pitch resulted in Ball Four in the batter's mind, whereas in what we're discussing, the pitch resulted in Ball One, Two or Three. Whether she casually trots to first on the one, or she stays at home on the other, she's reacting to the PU's initial call and her belief that she didn't swing.

Are you suggesting that we have different outcomes for the different situations?

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

While people want to hold the defense accountable here, it is the batter who placed herself in jeopardy, no one else.

The defense is not without some blame here, as well. After all, the catcher failed to catch the pitch.