Jump to content

Check swing - no appeal

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3567 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

As PU, just call the pitch if you are unsure of the check swing.

 

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

 

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way, I think you are reading way too much into it to not giver your honest opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

SteveJ
SteveJ

Colonel Obvious please......   I have the plate tonight so I'm going to inform my partners that I'm not going to rule on a single check swing -- one less thing I have to worry about -- I like this n

Thunderheads
Thunderheads

While your post is funny, and I enjoyed it, I must add .....   If you're rocking a 4 man system, there's no reason NOT to ask if there's any question, right?  What does it hurt?  I'm probably going

noumpere
noumpere

NCAA and MiLB is where I specifically heard it.

SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

Speaking from experience how many of us have had a check swing we called a swing and then thought oh S@#t that was close I should have gotten help. This has happened to me before but I called offer/strike and ate it.

I honestly can't remember ever giving a second thought to a pitch that I called a strike on an attempted check swing. I might have thought that I should have called one a strike that I didn't. I disagree with any one that suggest that the PU should automatically go for help on every attempted check swing. You are paid to use your judgement to call balls/strikes -- don't be afraid that a coach or an announcer might get angry at you.

If a check swing is "close" then I say, "No he didn't go" and wait for F2 to ask me to check with my partner. BUT if I have called it a strike -- I never have regrets because in my judgement it was a strike!

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

As PU, just call the pitch if you are unsure of the check swing.

 

Why?

 

My partner has already publicly judged that he did not go. He should not be coming to me if he has judged that anyway. If he calls the pitch a ball and says nothing else, then I (and everyone else) can safely assume the PU was blocked out or could not see the swing.

BU is there for help/extra info, not to blatantly undermine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking from experience how many of us have had a check swing we called a swing and then thought oh S@#t that was close I should have gotten help. This has happened to me before but I called offer/strike and ate it.

I honestly can't remember ever giving a second thought to a pitch that I called a strike on an attempted check swing. I might have thought that I should have called one a strike that I didn't. I disagree with any one that suggest that the PU should automatically go for help on every attempted check swing. You are paid to use your judgement to call balls/strikes -- don't be afraid that a coach or an announcer might get angry at you.

If a check swing is "close" then I say, "No he didn't go" and wait for F2 to ask me to check with my partner. BUT if I have called it a strike -- I never have regrets because in my judgement it was a strike!

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

As PU, just call the pitch if you are unsure of the check swing.

 

Why?

 

My partner has already publicly judged that he did not go. He should not be coming to me if he has judged that anyway. If he calls the pitch a ball and says nothing else, then I (and everyone else) can safely assume the PU was blocked out or could not see the swing.

BU is there for help/extra info, not to blatantly undermine.

 

Every call we make is a "public judgement".  You don't have to say anything.  If you don't call a check swing a strike you are publicly saying that he didn't go. Using your logic an umpire should never ask for help on any play and if asked the his partners should never disagree with him.  Before every game I tell my partner(s) that if I come to them they are to give me what they have...I do not consider that undermining me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

As PU, just call the pitch if you are unsure of the check swing.

 

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

 

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way, I think you are reading way too much into it to not giver your honest opinion.

 

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

 

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way...

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

Three 'pro' reasons

1. If something happens that was nothing, we verbalize "that's nothing" or in this case, "no, he didn't";

2. No verbal makes PU appear indecisive. Verbalizing tells everyone that you made a decision;

3. You're less likely to be asked for an appeal if you verbalize.

 

Two 'con" reasons

1. its messy. one guy says "no, he didn't", his partner contradicts him and says, "yes, he did";

2. partners are reluctant to appear to be contradicting their partner and don't give an honest appeal call.

 

IMO, if #2 can not be overcome, then the practice should not be used.The other reasons are subordinate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UMP45

UMP45

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

 

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way...

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

Three 'pro' reasons

1. If something happens that was nothing, we verbalize "that's nothing" or in this case, "no, he didn't";

2. No verbal makes PU appear indecisive. Verbalizing tells everyone that you made a decision;

3. You're less likely to be asked for an appeal if you verbalize.

 

Two 'con" reasons

1. its messy. one guy says "no, he didn't", his partner contradicts him and says, "yes, he did";

2. partners are reluctant to appear to be contradicting their partner and don't give an honest appeal call.

 

IMO, if #2 can not be overcome, then the practice should not be used.The other reasons are subordinate.

 

The 2 con reasons tells me the umpire(s) lack the intestinal fortitude to make the right call!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

 

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way...

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

Three 'pro' reasons

1. If something happens that was nothing, we verbalize "that's nothing" or in this case, "no, he didn't";

2. No verbal makes PU appear indecisive. Verbalizing tells everyone that you made a decision;

3. You're less likely to be asked for an appeal if you verbalize.

 

Two 'con" reasons

1. its messy. one guy says "no, he didn't", his partner contradicts him and says, "yes, he did";

2. partners are reluctant to appear to be contradicting their partner and don't give an honest appeal call.

 

IMO, if #2 can not be overcome, then the practice should not be used.The other reasons are subordinate.

 

If #2 can't be overcome then you need a different partner!

 

There are numerous situations where an umpire makes a call, involving a mechanical and/or a verbal signal, and asks for help. -- are you saying that the umpire making the call should never ask for help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way...

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

Three 'pro' reasons

1. If something happens that was nothing, we verbalize "that's nothing" or in this case, "no, he didn't";

2. No verbal makes PU appear indecisive. Verbalizing tells everyone that you made a decision;

3. You're less likely to be asked for an appeal if you verbalize.

Two 'con" reasons

1. its messy. one guy says "no, he didn't", his partner contradicts him and says, "yes, he did";

2. partners are reluctant to appear to be contradicting their partner and don't give an honest appeal call.

IMO, if #2 can not be overcome, then the practice should not be used.The other reasons are subordinate.

If #2 can't be overcome then you need a different partner!

There are numerous situations where an umpire makes a call, involving a mechanical and/or a verbal signal, and asks for help. -- are you saying that the umpire making the call should never ask for help? Or if asked for help their partner shouldn't provide them with honest information?

I'm pretty sure y'all missed my point. Nowhere did I say a PU should never ask for help or a BU should never give his honest opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

I was taught "No, he didn't go.  Did he go?  Yes, he did."

 

I prefer "Ball.  Did he go?  Yes, he did."  It's the same in practice, but it better communicates that the plate and base umpire are working together by focusing on the element each has the best angle on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.

You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way...

 

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

 

Three 'pro' reasons

1. If something happens that was nothing, we verbalize "that's nothing" or in this case, "no, he didn't";

2. No verbal makes PU appear indecisive. Verbalizing tells everyone that you made a decision;

3. You're less likely to be asked for an appeal if you verbalize.

Two 'con" reasons

1. its messy. one guy says "no, he didn't", his partner contradicts him and says, "yes, he did";

2. partners are reluctant to appear to be contradicting their partner and don't give an honest appeal call.

IMO, if #2 can not be overcome, then the practice should not be used.The other reasons are subordinate.

 

If #2 can't be overcome then you need a different partner!

There are numerous situations where an umpire makes a call, involving a mechanical and/or a verbal signal, and asks for help. -- are you saying that the umpire making the call should never ask for help? Or if asked for help their partner shouldn't provide them with honest information?

 

I'm pretty sure y'all missed my point. Nowhere did I say a PU should never ask for help or a BU should never give his honest opinion.

 

I think you might be right -- I did that....sorry!

 

But saying "no he didn't" on a check swing then going for help shouldn't be any different than your partner coming to you asking about the possibility of a pulled-foot or swipe-tag after they made a call.  So if you're ever in Tucson working a game with me and I come to you for help, give me what you got and I'll deal with the consequences. If I ask -- you can tell me that the baby is ugly :yippie: :yippie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

If I ever hear a PU say "No, he didn't go," and then appeals to me as a BU ... then I didn't see the batter swing either.
You do know that "he didn't go" is how many people are taught?

While I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be taught that way...

Why shouldn't it be taught that way?

Three 'pro' reasons

1. If something happens that was nothing, we verbalize "that's nothing" or in this case, "no, he didn't";

2. No verbal makes PU appear indecisive. Verbalizing tells everyone that you made a decision;

3. You're less likely to be asked for an appeal if you verbalize.

Two 'con" reasons

1. its messy. one guy says "no, he didn't", his partner contradicts him and says, "yes, he did";

2. partners are reluctant to appear to be contradicting their partner and don't give an honest appeal call.

IMO, if #2 can not be overcome, then the practice should not be used.The other reasons are subordinate.

If #2 can't be overcome then you need a different partner!

There are numerous situations where an umpire makes a call, involving a mechanical and/or a verbal signal, and asks for help. -- are you saying that the umpire making the call should never ask for help? Or if asked for help their partner shouldn't provide them with honest information?

I'm pretty sure y'all missed my point. Nowhere did I say a PU should never ask for help or a BU should never give his honest opinion.

I think you might be right -- I did that....sorry!

But saying "no he didn't" on a check swing then going for help shouldn't be any different than your partner coming to you asking about the possibility of a pulled-foot or swipe-tag after they made a call. So if you're ever in Tucson working a game with me and I come to you for help, give me what you got and I'll deal with the consequences. If I ask -- you can tell me that the baby is ugly :yippie: :yippie:

If the baby's ugly, it's not the GLM's fault ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted
But saying "no he didn't" on a check swing then going for help shouldn't be any different than your partner coming to you asking about the possibility of a pulled-foot or swipe-tag after they made a call.  So if you're ever in Tucson working a game with me and I come to you for help, give me what you got and I'll deal with the consequences. If I ask -- you can tell me that the baby is ugly :yippie: :yippie:

The parallel language would be this:

 

BU - He held the bag!  He out!

BU - Did he hold the bag!!?

PU - No, he did not.  He's off the bag!!

BU- Safe

 

vs.

 

BU - Out!

BU - Did he hold the bag!!?

PU - No, he did not.  He's off the bag!!

BU - Safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

I was taught "No, he didn't go.  Did he go?  Yes, he did."

 

I prefer "Ball.  Did he go?  Yes, he did."  It's the same in practice, but it better communicates that the plate and base umpire are working together by focusing on the element each has the best angle on.

I think in the case of a check-swing you need to call more than just the pitch.  So I would say, "Ball, no he didn't go" or "Yes he did' and indicate strike. That tells everyone that I was observing everything.

 

That's how I do it --

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

But saying "no he didn't" on a check swing then going for help shouldn't be any different than your partner coming to you asking about the possibility of a pulled-foot or swipe-tag after they made a call.  So if you're ever in Tucson working a game with me and I come to you for help, give me what you got and I'll deal with the consequences. If I ask -- you can tell me that the baby is ugly :yippie: :yippie:

The parallel language would be this:

 

BU - He held the bag!  He out!

BU - Did he hold the bag!!?

PU - No, he did not.  He's off the bag!!

BU- Safe

 

vs.

 

BU - Out!

BU - Did he hold the bag!!?

PU - No, he did not.  He's off the bag!!

BU - Safe

 

I've seen it done both ways and either is okay (IMHO) IF everything goes as scripted and your partner is in the proper position to help you with the call.

 

IMHO if I have to go to my partner before I make the call it seems to me that I am admitting that I'm out of position and couldn't see what happened.

 

I guess I'm "old school" - I make the calls I'm responsible for making.  If I'm the BU and I have a call at 1B, I never point to my partner and ask "Did he hold the bag" or whatever you want to say before I make my call.  What happens if my partner is out of position? Or he stumbled coming up the line or maybe he wasn't 100% sure and hesitates with his response, or ...................  Not going to look very good. 

 

If I'm the PU I would rather my partner(s) make a call then we get together if necessary. Don't point at me and yell across the field for help from me!

 

Also, if I'm the BU I do not say "He held the bag", if he didn't hold the bag I indicate that he was off the bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
basejester

basejester

Posted
Posted

Also, if I'm the BU I do not say "He held the bag", if he didn't hold the bag I indicate that he was off the bag.

 

And that's the point I was making.  As the BU, you're making a judgement with "out!" but not explicitly calling attention to your ruling on the element you might look for help on.  I'd like to apply the same logic to the check-swing case with the roles reversed -- the PU makes a ruling but doesn't explicitly call attention to a potential contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

Yes I do understand. I failed to mention that most of my veteran partners pregame this.

YMMV

In that case it's no different that the other "secret signals" (IF I use your name and point with my palm up, then agree wwith me; Iif I point with two fingers on my left had, then give me what you've got) that I also think shouldn't be used.

 

And I agree with whover posted the points in red and blue.  I personally give more credence to the red side of the point, but I understand the blue points as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

Yes I do understand. I failed to mention that most of my veteran partners pregame this.

YMMV

In that case it's no different that the other "secret signals" (IF I use your name and point with my palm up, then agree wwith me; Iif I point with two fingers on my left had, then give me what you've got) that I also think shouldn't be used.

And I agree with whover posted the points in red and blue. I personally give more credence to the red side of the point, but I understand the blue points as well.

I don't understand how that is interpreted as secret signals. @noumpere, you give some great insight on this forum, and I am having a hard time understanding this other POV.

I know this is one of those things where YMMV, as stated previously, but @basejester makes a pretty good point in the base call equivalent.

We are not saying to ask for help on a base call before you make a call, but a base umpire does not (read - should not) state something other than "out" or "safe" unless he is absolutely certain (ex. Off the bag).

The convo @basejester wrote here is an expedited version of going to ask for help from your PU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

Also, if I'm the BU I do not say "He held the bag", if he didn't hold the bag I indicate that he was off the bag.

 

And that's the point I was making.  As the BU, you're making a judgement with "out!" but not explicitly calling attention to your ruling on the element you might look for help on.  I'd like to apply the same logic to the check-swing case with the roles reversed -- the PU makes a ruling but doesn't explicitly call attention to a potential contradiction.

 

I see the point you're making but to me it's two different things.

 

Have you ever worked with a PU who called a pitch but didn't see what the batter did? I've had partners that called a pitch a ball and the batter swung at the pitch. Then come to me and ask "Steve, did he swing at that pitch?" - Now that's a missed call that makes you look pretty stupid.  So I am careful to watch everything. When there's a check swing situation I see myself ruling on 2 things; (1) was the pitch a ball or a strike on its own? and (2) did the batter offer at the pitch? 

 

I guess saying "Ball" indicates that he didn't go, just like only signalling "Strike" would indicate that he did go.  Just like signalling "Out" on a banger indicates you had an out but "banging" them out and adding a loud verbal "Out" indicates to the world that you are sure of your call -- selling the call!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

Also, if I'm the BU I do not say "He held the bag", if he didn't hold the bag I indicate that he was off the bag.

And that's the point I was making. As the BU, you're making a judgement with "out!" but not explicitly calling attention to your ruling on the element you might look for help on. I'd like to apply the same logic to the check-swing case with the roles reversed -- the PU makes a ruling but doesn't explicitly call attention to a potential contradiction.

I see the point you're making but to me it's two different things.

Have you ever worked with a PU who called a pitch but didn't see what the batter did? I've had partners that called a pitch a ball and the batter swung at the pitch. Then come to me and ask "Steve, did he swing at that pitch?" - Now that's a missed call that makes you look pretty stupid. So I am careful to watch everything. When there's a check swing situation I see myself ruling on 2 things; (1) was the pitch a ball or a strike on its own? and (2) did the batter offer at the pitch?

I guess saying "Ball" indicates that he didn't go, just like only signalling "Strike" would indicate that he did go. Just like signalling "Out" on a banger indicates you had an out but "banging" them out and adding a loud verbal "Out" indicates to the world that you are sure of your call -- selling the call!

A PU that comes to you on a full swing is a missed call. What does that have to do with not ruling on a check swing if you are unsure as the plate guy.

I agree with basejester that your mechanic is very similar to a BU calling 'Safe, off the bag' or 'Out, he kept the bag,' then going to get help from your PU. If you make an extra info call, you are seeing ALL the info and do not need any help or another angle.

Same concept with a check swing appeal IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

Also, if I'm the BU I do not say "He held the bag", if he didn't hold the bag I indicate that he was off the bag.

And that's the point I was making. As the BU, you're making a judgement with "out!" but not explicitly calling attention to your ruling on the element you might look for help on. I'd like to apply the same logic to the check-swing case with the roles reversed -- the PU makes a ruling but doesn't explicitly call attention to a potential contradiction.

 

I see the point you're making but to me it's two different things.

Have you ever worked with a PU who called a pitch but didn't see what the batter did? I've had partners that called a pitch a ball and the batter swung at the pitch. Then come to me and ask "Steve, did he swing at that pitch?" - Now that's a missed call that makes you look pretty stupid. So I am careful to watch everything. When there's a check swing situation I see myself ruling on 2 things; (1) was the pitch a ball or a strike on its own? and (2) did the batter offer at the pitch?

I guess saying "Ball" indicates that he didn't go, just like only signalling "Strike" would indicate that he did go. Just like signalling "Out" on a banger indicates you had an out but "banging" them out and adding a loud verbal "Out" indicates to the world that you are sure of your call -- selling the call!

 

A PU that comes to you on a full swing is a missed call. What does that have to do with not ruling on a check swing if you are unsure as the plate guy.

I agree with basejester that your mechanic is very similar to a BU calling 'Safe, off the bag' or 'Out, he kept the bag,' then going to get help from your PU. If you make an extra info call, you are seeing ALL the info and do not need any help or another angle.

Same concept with a check swing appeal IMO

 

"My mechanic"?  Not just my mechanic but that's not important.  

 

How do you "not rule" on a check swing?  If you say "Ball" you've ruled that he didn't offer at the pitch - if you indicate "Strike" you've ruled that he did offer at the pitch.  If you just stand there with a "far away look in your eyes" expecting one of your partners to make the call for you then you probably weren't paying attention.  You have to rule something every pitch.  BUT after you've "ruled" on the pitch - if you aren't 100% sure, and IF asked, you should go to one of your partners for help.

 

I guess this post is now going around in circles - so I've got nothing to add.  We all umpire as we think is best and who knows, maybe we are all right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

Where I work, I rarely see PU give the "no, he didn't" verbal, so I can't remember ever pre-gaming it. Then I am caught off-guard when it happens and I'll admit that I once agreed with a no-swing call and then wondered if my agreement was influenced by his verbal...I dunno. "Surprise is an umpire's worst enemy" - JE

 

With more umpires using this mechanic (though I am not sure that it is taught in reputable clinics), this item should be added to our pre-game checklist to prevent BU from being surprised by its use. And if in the pregame, PU says "no, he didn't" means BU must agree, then you can take the time to shove that notion up his arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UMP45

UMP45

Posted
Posted

Where I work, I rarely see PU give the "no, he didn't" verbal, so I can't remember ever pre-gaming it. Then I am caught off-guard when it happens and I'll admit that I once agreed with a no-swing call and then wondered if my agreement was influenced by his verbal...I dunno. "Surprise is an umpire's worst enemy" - JE

 

With more umpires using this mechanic (though I am not sure that it is taught in reputable clinics), this item should be added to our pre-game checklist to prevent BU from being surprised by its use. And if in the pregame, PU says "no, he didn't" means BU must agree, then you can take the time to shove that notion up his arse.

I guess Harry's and TUS aren't reputable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

 

Where I work, I rarely see PU give the "no, he didn't" verbal, so I can't remember ever pre-gaming it. Then I am caught off-guard when it happens and I'll admit that I once agreed with a no-swing call and then wondered if my agreement was influenced by his verbal...I dunno. "Surprise is an umpire's worst enemy" - JE

 

With more umpires using this mechanic (though I am not sure that it is taught in reputable clinics), this item should be added to our pre-game checklist to prevent BU from being surprised by its use. And if in the pregame, PU says "no, he didn't" means BU must agree, then you can take the time to shove that notion up his arse.

I guess Harry's and TUS aren't reputable!

Why would you disparage those two fine institutions of learning...I hear they are quite reputable.

 

Whether WUS, TUS or other clinics teach this mechanic, as I stated, I dunno.  Maybe some picker of nits will tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...