What Would You Do?

[MidAmUmp]

Since I can't stump anyone with my rules questions, I'll move on to some actual plays and see what you would do.  There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer on this.  This just gets you thinking about how to handle stuff when maybe things are black and white in the rule book and you just have to umpire.

 

This play really happened...

 

R1, outs don't matter, 0-0 count.

 

1st pitch to the batter, R1 goes on first movement, pitch is high, as the catcher starts to throw to 2nd the batter makes an extremely feeble 1-handed slow golf type swing.  R1 is safe at 2nd.

 

2nd pitch is a called strike.  Offensive head coach doesn't like the call, barks, then wants to know the count.  Plate Umpire says 1-1.

 

3rd pitch is a ball.  Plate umpire gives the count 2-1.

 

4th pitch is a called strike.  Defensive coach comes out and argues it's strike 3.  Plate umpire says it's 2-2.  Defensive coach says batter swung at the 1st pitch and he needs to get help.

 

We'll stop right there...

 

What would you do?

[VAUmp]

No swing on the first pitch  .. Count is 2-2 .. PLAY BALL

[grayhawk]

I didn't have him striking at the first pitch. The correct count is 2-2. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[afaber12]

I have a 2-2 count - the timing of the "swing" precludes it from being an attempt to strike at the pitch, seeing as the pitch has been completed. Though it doesn't sound like it from the description, there might have been a slight possibility of interference on the batter's part, trying to put off or delay the catcher's throw to second. It sounds like the defensive coach wants to appeal the swing on the first pitch. I can't quote rule chapter and verse at the moment - which I think is part of the point with these - but I'd not allow the appeal on the basis that an intervening play, attempted play or in this case pitch has occurred since the event to be appealed, legitimising what has gone before. Not that this sort of thing should ever happen, but given the last pitch was a strike there's not even the opportunity to have a "make up" appeal for that one, despite otherwise being obligated to check with a partner on appeal from the manager.

[Texas Manny]

Politely explain to the manager that the swing was not an attempt to hit a pitch but an unrelated action by the batter, that the count is 2-2, and there is no help to be gotten.

 

Hold firm.

[umpstu]

Why on earth would you even consider asking for help on this?

[Replacematt]

I'm telling DM it's 2-2 and that's it. If he had a complaint about the "swing," he had a chance to rectify it before the second pitch.

[JaxRolo]

I agree with everyone else 2-2

[noumpere]

Since I can't stump anyone with my rules questions, I'll move on to some actual plays and see what you would do.  There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer on this.  This just gets you thinking about how to handle stuff when maybe things are black and white in the rule book and you just have to umpire.

 

This play really happened...

 

R1, outs don't matter, 0-0 count.

 

1st pitch to the batter, R1 goes on first movement, pitch is high, as the catcher starts to throw to 2nd the batter makes an extremely feeble 1-handed slow golf type swing.  R1 is safe at 2nd.

 

2nd pitch is a called strike.  Offensive head coach doesn't like the call, barks, then wants to know the count.  Plate Umpire says 1-1.

 

 

Does BU see this?  Does BU agree?  If not, does BU flash the 0-2 count to PU or otherwise try to clarify?

 

Is there a scoreboard?  What does it say?  If not 1-1 did PU (try to) correct it?

 

Back to the first pitch -- did PU forcefully give the count as a ball here -- it seems that PU should have recognized that there could be some issue here.

 

I think my point is that there were opportunities to address this before now.  That's one of the things involved in being "a good umpire is one who goes unnoticed".  Now, however, no matter what you do, you are going to be noticed.

[ricka56]

1st pitch to the batter, R1 goes on first movement, pitch is high, as the catcher starts to throw to 2nd the batter makes an extremely feeble 1-handed slow golf type swing.  R1 is safe at 2nd.

Several times I have seen similar movements. Batter is preparing to bat, but pitch is outside. As the pitch is passing the batter, he relaxes his stance and bat comes down like a practice golf swing. This movement with this pitch is no attempt to strike at the ball. Any umpire calling that kind of movement a strike is crazy incorrrect. 

[Mr Umpire]

Simply explain to him that it is 2-2 since I did not have a swing on the first pitch.  If he wants help on that, explain that it is too late since a pitch has been thrown since then and he should have requested it after the first pitch.  There will be no help requested at this point.  After that, his only choice will be to go back or be told the discussion is over and run the risk of EJ if he continues. 

 

The only way I ask for help is if I did call the first pitch a swing and just forgot the count.  That is the only way he gets any benefit of me asking what the count is.  This is a very rare possibility.

 

At this point, it is too late to "go unnoticed".  Cannot go back in time to change that.  Calling "Ball" on the pitch starts the game management.  Also, I ignore 3BC as I would have given the count before he even asked for it since I probably won't hear him unless he says some magic words.

[MidAmUmp]

 

Since I can't stump anyone with my rules questions, I'll move on to some actual plays and see what you would do.  There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer on this.  This just gets you thinking about how to handle stuff when maybe things are black and white in the rule book and you just have to umpire.

 

This play really happened...

 

R1, outs don't matter, 0-0 count.

 

1st pitch to the batter, R1 goes on first movement, pitch is high, as the catcher starts to throw to 2nd the batter makes an extremely feeble 1-handed slow golf type swing.  R1 is safe at 2nd.

 

2nd pitch is a called strike.  Offensive head coach doesn't like the call, barks, then wants to know the count.  Plate Umpire says 1-1.

 

 

Does BU see this?  Does BU agree?  If not, does BU flash the 0-2 count to PU or otherwise try to clarify?

 

Is there a scoreboard?  What does it say?  If not 1-1 did PU (try to) correct it?

 

Back to the first pitch -- did PU forcefully give the count as a ball here -- it seems that PU should have recognized that there could be some issue here.

 

I think my point is that there were opportunities to address this before now.  That's one of the things involved in being "a good umpire is one who goes unnoticed".  Now, however, no matter what you do, you are going to be noticed.

 

I won't give away what happend with the play yet, but I will attempt to answer your questions...

Yes, 1 base umpire saw this.  Not answering the rest.

The scoreboard had the count as 0-2 after the 2nd pitch.

The plate umpire was blocked out by the catcher and didn't see any batter movement.  Catcher was a big guy.

[mstaylor]

Doesn't matter, he had no swing, which sounds right, and I am telling the coach no way I am going back four pitches. 2-2<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[noumpere]

 

 

Since I can't stump anyone with my rules questions, I'll move on to some actual plays and see what you would do.  There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer on this.  This just gets you thinking about how to handle stuff when maybe things are black and white in the rule book and you just have to umpire.

 

This play really happened...

 

R1, outs don't matter, 0-0 count.

 

1st pitch to the batter, R1 goes on first movement, pitch is high, as the catcher starts to throw to 2nd the batter makes an extremely feeble 1-handed slow golf type swing.  R1 is safe at 2nd.

 

2nd pitch is a called strike.  Offensive head coach doesn't like the call, barks, then wants to know the count.  Plate Umpire says 1-1.

 

 

Does BU see this?  Does BU agree?  If not, does BU flash the 0-2 count to PU or otherwise try to clarify?

 

Is there a scoreboard?  What does it say?  If not 1-1 did PU (try to) correct it?

 

Back to the first pitch -- did PU forcefully give the count as a ball here -- it seems that PU should have recognized that there could be some issue here.

 

I think my point is that there were opportunities to address this before now.  That's one of the things involved in being "a good umpire is one who goes unnoticed".  Now, however, no matter what you do, you are going to be noticed.

 

I won't give away what happend with the play yet, but I will attempt to answer your questions...

Yes, 1 base umpire saw this.  Not answering the rest.

The scoreboard had the count as 0-2 after the 2nd pitch.

The plate umpire was blocked out by the catcher and didn't see any batter movement.  Catcher was a big guy.

 

My fault for being confusing.

 

What I meant was:

Q. What would you do?

A. Not let it get that far.

[spiritump]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

[grayhawk]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

 

Please explain the bolded statement above.  Thanks.

[Mr Umpire]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

What the BU saw has nothing to do with it once it is 3 pitches later.  At this point, it is about how to handle the DC and explain to him to get the call at the time it occurred.  Going back now isn't good unless the PU lost the count. 

 

I would have a 2-2 count and wondering how do I explain it to not trigger an EJ if possible.  More than likely, DC may be going if he wants to push it.

 

I am also curious about the OBS part.  And, if you meant INT, then I am still curious how this is possible and why it was allowed to go for 3 more pitches before being called.

[spiritump]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

What the BU saw has nothing to do with it once it is 3 pitches later.  At this point, it is about how to handle the DC and explain to him to get the call at the time it occurred.  Going back now isn't good unless the PU lost the count. 

 

I would have a 2-2 count and wondering how do I explain it to not trigger an EJ if possible.  More than likely, DC may be going if he wants to push it.

 

I am also curious about the OBS part.  And, if you meant INT, then I am still curious how this is possible and why it was allowed to go for 3 more pitches before being called.

My Bad ment to say INT

[spiritump]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

 

Please explain the bolded statement above.  Thanks.

Ment to say INT

[grayhawk]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it you have a strike. If as they say it was a late swing that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

Please explain the bolded statement above. Thanks. Ment to say INT What makes you think INT should have been called ? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spiritump]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

What the BU saw has nothing to do with it once it is 3 pitches later.  At this point, it is about how to handle the DC and explain to him to get the call at the time it occurred.  Going back now isn't good unless the PU lost the count. 

 

I would have a 2-2 count and wondering how do I explain it to not trigger an EJ if possible.  More than likely, DC may be going if he wants to push it.

 

I am also curious about the OBS part.  And, if you meant INT, then I am still curious how this is possible and why it was allowed to go for 3 more pitches before being called.

My Bad ment to say INT

What I am saying is if there was a swing that the PU did not see then there was a swing there is a strike on the pitch. If the PU is saying that the swing that the batter made does not count because it was late--what is that?? A mistake was made either a strike was missed or a INT was missed, the umps have to fix it. If INT batter out r1 goes back to first, or strike three r1 stays on 2nd. You can not screw the team on the field twice because of ump error.

[spiritump]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it you have a strike. If as they say it was a late swing that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

Please explain the bolded statement above. Thanks.

Ment to say INT

What makes you think INT should have been called ?

see my next post

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr Umpire]

 

 

 

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

What the BU saw has nothing to do with it once it is 3 pitches later.  At this point, it is about how to handle the DC and explain to him to get the call at the time it occurred.  Going back now isn't good unless the PU lost the count. 

 

I would have a 2-2 count and wondering how do I explain it to not trigger an EJ if possible.  More than likely, DC may be going if he wants to push it.

 

I am also curious about the OBS part.  And, if you meant INT, then I am still curious how this is possible and why it was allowed to go for 3 more pitches before being called.

 

My Bad ment to say INT

 

What I am saying is if there was a swing that the PU did not see then there was a swing there is a strike on the pitch. If the PU is saying that the swing that the batter made does not count because it was late--what is that?? A mistake was made either a strike was missed or a INT was missed, the umps have to fix it. If INT batter out r1 goes back to first, or strike three r1 stays on 2nd. You can not screw the team on the field twice because of ump error.

 

Wow.  You are stepping into a nest either way.  OC is going to go nuts b/c he will say he would have done things differently if the umpire told him a different count. 

 

No way am I changing a call from a possible strike 3 only into a batter out and R2 goes back to R1.  Can't go back in time once this mistake occurs.  At best, I get strike 3 on the batter.  But, I won't b/c DC had a chance to get it corrected by asking as soon as the first pitch came in. 

 

DC only screwed himself by not verifying after the first pitch what the call was.  He did it to himself.

[spiritump]

if the PU was blocked and did not see the swing--but there was a swing and the BU saw it  you have a strike.  If  as they say it was a late swing  that was seen by both or just the BU than I have a skrike because if I do not have a strike I have obstruction. When the DC comes out  to argu the BU should get togeter with the PU and go over what the BU saw.

What the BU saw has nothing to do with it once it is 3 pitches later.  At this point, it is about how to handle the DC and explain to him to get the call at the time it occurred.  Going back now isn't good unless the PU lost the count. 

 

I would have a 2-2 count and wondering how do I explain it to not trigger an EJ if possible.  More than likely, DC may be going if he wants to push it.

 

I am also curious about the OBS part.  And, if you meant INT, then I am still curious how this is possible and why it was allowed to go for 3 more pitches before being called.

My Bad ment to say INT

What I am saying is if there was a swing that the PU did not see then there was a swing there is a strike on the pitch. If the PU is saying that the swing that the batter made does not count because it was late--what is that?? A mistake was made either a strike was missed or a INT was missed, the umps have to fix it. If INT batter out r1 goes back to first, or strike three r1 stays on 2nd. You can not screw the team on the field twice because of ump error.

Wow.  You are stepping into a nest either way.  OC is going to go nuts b/c he will say he would have done things differently if the umpire told him a different count. 

 

No way am I changing a call from a possible strike 3 only into a batter out and R2 goes back to R1.  Can't go back in time once this mistake occurs.  At best, I get strike 3 on the batter.  But, I won't b/c DC had a chance to get it corrected by asking as soon as the first pitch came in. 

 

DC only screwed himself by not verifying after the first pitch what the call was.  He did it to himself.

just asking --it is our job to do the easy thing --or the right thing. We had a swing but nothing came of it --Why??

[grayhawk]

 

What I am saying is if there was a swing that the PU did not see then there was a swing there is a strike on the pitch. If the PU is saying that the swing that the batter made does not count because it was late--what is that?? A mistake was made either a strike was missed or a INT was missed, the umps have to fix it. If INT batter out r1 goes back to first, or strike three r1 stays on 2nd. You can not screw the team on the field twice because of ump error.

 

 

I don't see any errors made by anyone here with the exception that the scoreboard should have been corrected earlier.  If a batter "makes an extremely feeble 1-handed slow golf type swing" (from the OP) when the pitch has already been caught and F2 is in his motion to throw to second, I don't see calling it a strike.  Sounds like a half-hearted attempt to distract F2 while he was throwing.  Doesn't mean it's interference.  Nothing in the OP leads me to believe F2 was interfered with on this play.  MidAmUmp said PU didn't even see the movement, but based on the description, I would think "nothing" would be what he would have called.