Who is watching the farm?

[Rich Ives]

If you go to the W school web site and click on Message Board it brings you here. So who from the school is watching and could they answer some basic questions.

[Guest Wendelstedt]

Go ahead with any questions you have. We would be happy to help in any way we can.

[umpschool]

Sorry, wasn't logged in. That was me.

[Jocko]

Sorry, wasn't logged in. That was me.

take a peek at the IBB thread and feel free to chime in.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/40537-swing-on-ibb-strike/

[RichMSN]

When Wendelstedt's Umpiring School has to deal with hard pitch count limits, I'm sure they'll develop a philosophy.

In other words, his answer would be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the thread. The only answer a LL umpire cares about is the one WP and the Rules Committee gives us.

[Jocko]

When Wendelstedt's Umpiring School has to deal with hard pitch count limits, I'm sure they'll develop a philosophy.

In other words, his answer would be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the thread. The only answer a LL umpire cares about is the one WP and the Rules Committee gives us.

so the issue isn't swing/no swing, but pitch count? Do you think TPTB in WP would respect PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTORS take on the situation and weigh it in with their discussion? If they discuss this for more than 4 seconds, that is.

[Rich Ives]

When Wendelstedt's Umpiring School has to deal with hard pitch count limits, I'm sure they'll develop a philosophy.

In other words, his answer would be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the thread. The only answer a LL umpire cares about is the one WP and the Rules Committee gives us.

Sounds like you're preparing to lose. ;-)

[basejester]

so the issue isn't swing/no swing, but pitch count? Do you think TPTB in WP would respect PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTORS take on the situation and weigh it in with their discussion? If they discuss this for more than 4 seconds, that is.

The closest analogy in leagues without a pitch count, is (has been pointed out) the uncaught third strike on a wild pitch.

Ideally, I'd like to see a play where the consensus is, "The batter wanted a strike here, but we didn't give it to him because of X (e.g., the ball is already past him)," and another where the consensus is, "The batter wanted a strike here, and it was enough like an attempt to strike the ball that we gave it to him."

Every call has to have a boundary between the possibilities and a standard for defining that boundary. That is, assuming intent isn't the standard, what is?

[Jocko]

When Wendelstedt's Umpiring School has to deal with hard pitch count limits, I'm sure they'll develop a philosophy.

In other words, his answer would be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the thread. The only answer a LL umpire cares about is the one WP and the Rules Committee gives us.

Sounds like you're preparing to lose. ;-)

someone send Dr. Michael Lantiere. I guess that would be definitive enough. Wendlestedt is surely inferior to a volunteer dentist!

[JaxRolo]

Sorry, wasn't logged in. That was me.

take a peek at the IBB thread and feel free to chime in.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/40537-swing-on-ibb-strike/

I don't think they want to get involved in that. They might embarrass those other guys.

[Jocko]

Sorry, wasn't logged in. That was me.

take a peek at the IBB thread and feel free to chime in.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/40537-swing-on-ibb-strike/

I don't think they want to get involved in that. They might embarrass those other guys.

shows alot of wisdom. Believe I'll follow their lead. Again.

[RichMSN]

When Hunter is on the rules committee of LLBB, I'll care since it is a LL question. It's not that his opinion isn't a valued opinion, it's just not relevant. When in Rome -- you follow their rules and direction no matter what you personally think of it.

Those of you getting bent out of shape over it are forgetting IJAFIBB.

[grayhawk]

I would love to hear what Wendelstedt has to say, even though I can't think of a situation where a player would want to add a strike to their count on an IBB other than in youth baseball where there are pitch count limits. RichMSN is right in that if WP expected it to be called a certain way, then that is what I would follow when umpiring a LL game regardless of how other official sources interpret it. If umpiring non-LL games, then I would follow other official sources.

All I ever wanted was either an official interpretation, or something other than "HE SWUNG!11!1Uno!!" to convince me that the way the rule is written either allows or doesn't allow for judgment.

What's funny to me is the amount of emotion shown on the other side of the discussion. I don't care if my interpretation is right or wrong, but that seems quite important to others.

[Rich Ives]

I find it amazing that people think it's perfectly OK to deliberately throw the ball where the batter can't hit it but it isn't OK for the batter to try to add th the pitcher's pitch count.

As a coach of either the batter or the pitcher I do NOT have a problem with it being called a strike - in fact I would expect it to be.

[grayhawk]

I find it amazing that people think it's perfectly OK to deliberately throw the ball where the batter can't hit it but it isn't OK for the batter to try to add th the pitcher's pitch count.

As a coach of either the batter or the pitcher I do NOT have a problem with it being called a strike - in fact I would expect it to be.

1st paragraph, I agree 100%.

2nd paragraph, I agree as long as he strikes at the pitch (based on the written definition of a strike).