Swing on IBB - strike?

[Rich Ives]

The umpire doesn't make the call - the TD makes the call - but only after the TD makes a ruling and then only if the "loser" of the protest wants to continue. The TD will have in all likelihood seen the swing, may ask for other input, and will not for one second buy the "he didn't offer" position that is proffered by the umpire.

AND only a manager can protest - if the umpire doesn't like the answer it's tough cookies for him.

But the manager doesn't get on the phone -- the TD or his representative does. In our district, that's typically a district umpire. And that umpire will know exactly what to say, too.

As I said before, this hasn't happened to me. If it did, I'm not sure I'd do this, either.

But don't tell me you could protest a ball/strike decision and win. At the end of the day whether I think a batter offered or not belongs to me and me alone. And since there's no requirement in LL baseball that I ask for help on a checked/half swing, that's a non-starter, too.

(If you guys haven't figured this out, I'm mainly arguing for arguing's sake -- but it's fun riling everyone up. Especially Rich, who hasn't been wrong since he found the Internet and probably still hasn't umpired a game.)

I already said the TD made the call - you quoted it - don't try throwing that in my face.

I umpired years ago when we had to umpire each other's minors games. I also did bases in majors a few times.

Are you saying the TD would lie to make sure your ruling is upheld? Sure sounds like it.

The person calling region/Williamsport sure as hell better read the managers protest report accurately because if he doesn't he has zero integrity and doesn't belong in that job.

If you're going to argue - do it with class and integrity. Advocating lying is neither.

[soapbox]

So just to be clear, when a batter purposely swings thru a pitch to intentionally hinder F2 ability to throw out R1 as he attempts a steal, I've got a ball, and BI, and send runner back to base at TOP.

[treydawgmt]

When a pitch is thrown near a batter and he swings the bat through the zone, the umpire has to judge if his intent is to avoid the ball or to strike the ball.

I have never seen, at any level, a batter swing the bat through the strike zone avoiding a pitch and have it called anything other than a strike.

[mstaylor]

Rich Ives, I am confused by the whole protest conversation. You are the TD and you call Williamsport and say what? We have situation where they are performing an IBB. The batter attempted a swing, the PU judged it a no swing, can you rule on it? And the answer should be, rule on a judgment call, kind of hard to do, thanks for calling.

[Rich Ives]

Rich Ives, I am confused by the whole protest conversation. You are the TD and you call Williamsport and say what? We have situation where they are performing an IBB. The batter attempted a swing, the PU judged it a no swing, can you rule on it? And the answer should be, rule on a judgment call, kind of hard to do, thanks for calling.

Haven't you been reading all of this?

The batter swung. A complete swing. No ifs ands or buts. No one has disputed that part. The umpire basically said "too far away - couldn'rt have possibly hit the ball so I'm callling it a ball". He admitted there was a swing but ruled it wasn't a valid swing. Rule misinterpretation at the very least.

Callling it a judgement call is just an afterthought attempt during the proterst procedure to justify one's opinion that it's BS baseball thus OK to use that excuse.

[grayhawk]

So just to be clear, when a batter purposely swings thru a pitch to intentionally hinder F2 ability to throw out R1 as he attempts a steal, I've got a ball, and BI, and send runner back to base at TOP.

Apples and plutonium.

[JaxRolo]

In the OP he said he swung the bat but then judge it not to be a swing? I can't believe this has gone this long.

Strike all day Long!!!! And Tomorrow as well!

[grayhawk]

Rich Ives, I am confused by the whole protest conversation. You are the TD and you call Williamsport and say what? We have situation where they are performing an IBB. The batter attempted a swing, the PU judged it a no swing, can you rule on it? And the answer should be, rule on a judgment call, kind of hard to do, thanks for calling.

Haven't you been reading all of this?

The batter swung. A complete swing. No ifs ands or buts. No one has disputed that part. The umpire basically said "too far away - couldn'rt have possibly hit the ball so I'm callling it a ball". He admitted there was a swing but ruled it wasn't a valid swing. Rule misinterpretation at the very least.

Callling it a judgement call is just an afterthought attempt during the proterst procedure to justify one's opinion that it's BS baseball thus OK to use that excuse.

I still haven't seen one post that refutes my interpretation with any kind of substance. All I hear is "he swung." Again, neither "swing" nor "swung" appear in the definition. He must "strike AT" the pitch. When I started this thread, I was hoping someone would be able to produce an official interpretation from MLBUM or PBUC what would give a definitive answer on this, but I have yet to see it.

Did he swing the bat? Absolutely. Did he strike at the pitch? Absolutely not. Is it better to just call it a strike? Probably. However, if I did rule it ball, I would not, in a protest situation, say "too far away - couldn't have possibly hit the ball so I'm callling it a ball." I would simply state, using rulebook terminology, that in my judgment the batter did not strike at the pitch.

As far as your last statement is concerned, I know others have opined that this is BS baseball, but I have not. In fact, I stated the opposite so I certainly wasn't trying to call it judgment to justify anything. If that statement was not meant for me, then please disregard.

[Jocko]

Your argument is arbitrary. If you'd call it a strike on an 0-0 count, it's a strike on a 3-0 count. You're there to call the game. So CALL THE DAMN GAME! If you were being evaled and let that go, I sure hope you would be asked why. What would your answer be? "But the words swing or swung aren't in the rule book." Does that make them less valid? Is hook-slide in the book? Does it still exist? How about elbow and ankle armor? Gee, they must not exist since it's not in the book. Souvenir vendors, medicine balls, and recumbent bikes must all be figments of our imaginations.Pfft..... Arbitrary and invalid.

Fish- Hey Hawk! Want a dog and a beer?

Hawk- That would be great, but since it's not in the book........

[grayhawk]

Your argument is arbitrary. If you'd call it a strike on an 0-0 count, it's a strike on a 3-0 count. You're there to call the game. So CALL THE DAMN GAME! If you were being evaled and let that go, I sure hope you would be asked why. What would your answer be? "But the words swing or swung aren't in the rule book." Does that make them less valid? Is hook-slide in the book? Does it still exist? How about elbow and ankle armor? Gee, they must not exist since it's not in the book. Souvenir vendors, medicine balls, and recumbent bikes must all be figments of our imaginations.Pfft..... Arbitrary and invalid.

Fish- Hey Hawk! Want a dog and a beer?

Hawk- That would be great, but since it's not in the book........

Actually, the definition I am using does exist. Yours doesn't. If it's so easy, why can't someone just look at the definition and come up with something of substance other than, "He swung! I'm right! You're wrong!" I understand that this challenges something thought of as fundamental (and apparently sacred to some), but the language in the rule book seems to back my interpretation.

Unless someone can produce something of substance, I think this thread has run its course. In the absence of a real, professional interpretation, here is my takeaway from this thread: Just call it a strike. Nobody will argue with you if you do, but plenty of people will argue with you if you don't. They won't be able to point to anything specific in the rules to back their point of view, but in the interest of game management, just make the call everyone thinks should be called and move on.

[basejester]

I have never seen, at any level, a batter swing the bat through the strike zone avoiding a pitch and have it called anything other than a strike.

OK. I have. It seemed appropriate. Here's the rule:

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put

out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—

. . .

(B) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit

So when the batter spins (in the ill-advised direction) to avoid a pitch, the umpire can call a ball, regardless of where the bat goes.

[basejester]

Your argument is arbitrary. If you'd call it a strike on an 0-0 count, it's a strike on a 3-0 count.

I don't think anybody argued the count matters.

[JaxRolo]

So let's see. A team is giving an intentional walk to the batter. F1 pitches but the ball slips and hits the batter. Batter tried to get out of the way.

PU- "Time" Batter that's a ball! Pitcher wasn't trying to hit you. Just slipped.

Let's make up the rules as we go.

[NFUA_44]

So just to be clear, when a batter purposely swings thru a pitch to intentionally hinder F2 ability to throw out R1 as he attempts a steal, I've got a ball, and BI, and send runner back to base at TOP.

Apples and plutonium.

That right there is freakin Mastercard, Priceless!

[RichMSN]

So let's see. A team is giving an intentional walk to the batter. F1 pitches but the ball slips and hits the batter. Batter tried to get out of the way.

PU- "Time" Batter that's a ball! Pitcher wasn't trying to hit you. Just slipped.

Let's make up the rules as we go.

I think the definition of "strike" was posted. Your post is nothing but a red herring.

I don't have to worry past today. I'm working a Little League regional and during our umpire meeting someone else asked this question. I almost fell off my chair. The UIC is going to ask Williamsport, so all the speculation and posturing by people like me is meaningless. What they say goes for their games. If I had to guess, they'll say to call it a strike and avoid the even crappier end of the stick.

[basejester]

So let's see. A team is giving an intentional walk to the batter. F1 pitches but the ball slips and hits the batter. Batter tried to get out of the way.

PU- "Time" Batter that's a ball! Pitcher wasn't trying to hit you. Just slipped.

Let's make up the rules as we go.

I don't think that relates to any of the discussion.

[basejester]

Let me add a wrinkle.

In Little League with closed bases, if the pitcher drops the ball while standing on the rubber; it's a illegal pitch, not a balk.

If the pitcher drops the ball 4 times to achieve an IBB, what do you have?

What if the batter swings the bat after the drop?

Is one or both of those actions a travesty of the game? They'd look like Olympic badminton players.

[JaxRolo]

So let's see. A team is giving an intentional walk to the batter. F1 pitches but the ball slips and hits the batter. Batter tried to get out of the way.

PU- "Time" Batter that's a ball! Pitcher wasn't trying to hit you. Just slipped.

Let's make up the rules as we go.

I don't think that relates to any of the discussion.

Why not?

In one case the batter obviously swings its called a Ball.

The other case HBP called a ball.

In both cases we are misapplying the rule.

[Rich Ives]

Let me add a wrinkle.

In Little League with closed bases, if the pitcher drops the ball while standing on the rubber; it's a illegal pitch, not a balk.

If the pitcher drops the ball 4 times to achieve an IBB, what do you have?

You have an ejected pitcher because that's a rule violation in LL 8.02(b )

What if the batter swings the bat after the drop?

A pitch is a ball delivered to the batter. This was a drop, not a legal pitch.

Is one or both of those actions a travesty of the game?

The first one is - that's why LL has a rule against it.

They'd look like Olympic badminton players.

That covers the LL rules anyhow.

[Jocko]

Let me add a wrinkle.

In Little League with closed bases, if the pitcher drops the ball while standing on the rubber; it's a illegal pitch, not a balk.

If the pitcher drops the ball 4 times to achieve an IBB, what do you have?

You have an ejected pitcher because that's a rule violation in LL

What if the batter swings the bat after the drop?

A pitch is a ball delivered to the batter. This was a drop, not a legal pitch.

Is one or both of those actions a travesty of the game? The first one is - that's why LL has a rule against it.

They'd look like Olympic badminton players.

and apparently Olympic boxing referees

[basejester]

Why not?

In one case the batter obviously swings its called a Ball.

Here we're looking at the actual language of the rule and trying to decide if "strike at" applies or not.

The other case HBP called a ball.

In both cases we are misapplying the rule.

In the second case, you've made no reference to a rule to apply correctly or misapply.

The first case may be a misapplication, but you've mischaracterized it as making up a rule.

[JaxRolo]

Look at the OP. It says he swung. And its called a ball! That's not a judgement call. It is already stated the he swung. Therefore Misapplication of the Rule.

[Jocko]

Look at the OP. It says he swung. And its called a ball! That's not a judgement call. It is already stated the he swung. Therefore Misapplication of the Rule.

Jax, Jax, Jax.... It doesn't matter if he swung. He wasn't attempting to actually hit the ball. He only wanted to add to the pitch count. Swinging has nothing to do with strikes. The word isn't even in the rule book. Haven't you been reading? :shakehead:

[Rich Ives]

OK I get it now - if it wasn't possible to hit the ball it's a "ball" even though the batter swung.

So if a batter flails away at a low and away curve and misses it buy a foot it's a "ball" because he couldn't possibly have hit it.

I get it now.

Thanks all.

:angel4:

[grayhawk]

So let's see. A team is giving an intentional walk to the batter. F1 pitches but the ball slips and hits the batter. Batter tried to get out of the way.

PU- "Time" Batter that's a ball! Pitcher wasn't trying to hit you. Just slipped.

Let's make up the rules as we go.

I think the definition of "strike" was posted. Your post is nothing but a red herring.

I don't have to worry past today. I'm working a Little League regional and during our umpire meeting someone else asked this question. I almost fell off my chair. The UIC is going to ask Williamsport, so all the speculation and posturing by people like me is meaningless. What they say goes for their games. If I had to guess, they'll say to call it a strike and avoid the even crappier end of the stick.

Wow Rich, congrats on the region assignment! Will that be the Great Lakes region in Indianapolis? I know some of the semi-final and final games will be televised, so be sure to let us know if you get some screen time. My guess is that you are right about what WP will say. From a game management perspective, it's just the easier thing to do.