Intersting Rare Check Swing Appeal

[ALStripes17]

I now understand the OBR Official Interpretation 79-77 WENDELSTEDT giving some rule support in pro baseball.

This is an interesting way to look at the situation because clearly the tag-out  at second is occurring before the appeal. I think our original thought process was when I discussed this play with my buddy who was the appealing coach and a extraordinarily talented umpire was ........Does the tag end the inning and any appeal asking for a fourth out ........ (and that's what it is "a fourth out") would not be allowed. It's your position that it would because the third out is not the tag at second if properly appealed but the batter striking out.

Interesting. 

If you're not going to call it a "fourth out appeal" what would you call it?

Batter out on strike three for the 3rd out...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis, you might find this text from the Wendelstedt manual (which was referenced earlier in this thread by Mr. Brad Jones) to be helpful:

However, on a two-strike count with two outs, the defense may appeal until all infielders have left the infield that the batter attempted to hit the pitch. If the appeal is upheld, the out on the runner who was put out on the steal play is nullified, and the batter is the one declared out. THIS IS NOT AN APPARENT FOURTH OUT SITUATION. Rather this is based on the theory that the batter was actually out before the steal play occurred. The umpires should be aware that an upheld appeal may change which batter is due up on the offensive team’s next at-bat…

 

[Cato the Younger]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis, you might find this text from the Wendelstedt manual (which was referenced earlier in this thread by Mr. Brad Jones) to be helpful:

However, on a two-strike count with two outs, the defense may appeal until all infielders have left the infield that the batter attempted to hit the pitch. If the appeal is upheld, the out on the runner who was put out on the steal play is nullified, and the batter is the one declared out. THIS IS NOT AN APPARENT FOURTH OUT SITUATION. Rather this is based on the theory that the batter was actually out before the steal play occurred. The umpires should be aware that an upheld appeal may change which batter is due up on the offensive team’s next at-bat…

 

 

 

First I love the handle reference.

Second I have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

Thanks for pointing that out. It is interesting AL pointed this out too. By looking at this in this context the check swing appeal is clearly allowed and I would also apply this to Fed rules as well....... which is the code the actual game leading to the OP was played under.

We need to give this situation a fancy name. Something cool sounding like...... a displacing third out appeal.

[HokieUmp]

Sorry, but I'm gonna derail the thread, although I think it has kind of been figured out....

On 2/8/2016 at 4:45 PM, Cato the Younger said:

 As a coach, this guy is a complete class act the type of guy who you like to work for. Tends to get umpires to work hard for him and bring their "A" game but he's always very professional. He actually has all his kids come out and shake the umpires hands before the game. Some of my colleagues don't like this, but I think it's a very classy gesture.

I would have to put myself in the "some of my colleagues" category.

Part of my instinctive response when I read this was "That's pretty kiss-ass, and I don't like it much."

On further reflection, I still feel that, for the most part.  What actually passes that, though, is that this gesture - regardless of whether it comes from a good place or not - puts you in a tough place.  Why?  What does the other coach, or the other team's fans or parents, think when they see that?  "Oh, so THEY do that, and they're going to get every call now!  We don't have a chance, playing 11-on-9!"

In other words, it's "bad optics."  Don't need it.  Don't want it.

[Cato the Younger]

47 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

Sorry, but I'm gonna derail the thread, although I think it has kind of been figured out....

I would have to put myself in the "some of my colleagues" category.

Part of my instinctive response when I read this was "That's pretty kiss-ass, and I don't like it much."

On further reflection, I still feel that, for the most part.  What actually passes that, though, is that this gesture - regardless of whether it comes from a good place or not - puts you in a tough place.  Why?  What does the other coach, or the other team's fans or parents, think when they see that?  "Oh, so THEY do that, and they're going to get every call now!  We don't have a chance, playing 11-on-9!"

In other words, it's "bad optics."  Don't need it.  Don't want it.

Bingo! You hit the "other colleagues" viewpoint pretty much straight on the head. 

On the flip side of it, his' kid is an incredibly talented athlete, and everyone knows this guy is not only a very talented coach but umpire. So it's pretty hard for him to stay low profile. Most of the coaches on the "select" scene in the area are very familiar with him as a coach and umpire.

Besides having the kids shake hands with the umpire....... the first time the opponents take the field his players remain in their defensive positions waiting to shake hands with their opponents. If everyone including the umpires have not seen this, they wonder if the opponents are confused and not realize there's three outs, but they're actually waiting to shake hands. I've seen umpires I've worked with say: Hey it's three outs guys" It's an interesting dynamic. 

He's a retired military guy actually played baseball at one of the military prep schools.  I think it was the Naval Academy. Everything is yes or no sir from him and his athletes and you get no garbage not only his players, but he will go after his parents if they say anything negative about the umpiring or opponents. Yes there are umpires that share your exact feelings about him. I've also seen parents less than enthused about the standards that he imposes upon them. lol

Personally, I like the guy, but I have seen opponents absolutely paranoid that they're going to get hosed because the other teams coach is an umpire and knows the umpires assigned to the game.

 

[Minnz]

I would wonder why PU, being it was two strike situation, did not appeal automatically on his own if it was that close. As the PU you have to be more liberal on appealing it yoursef with two strike situations I say.

[VolUmp]

I have really enjoyed the "evolution" of Cato the Younger on this entire thread.

And since it's 12:06 am and I'm an insomniac, all of my thoughts are gonna come out now ... solicited or not.

1) Regarding the antics the coach is teaching his players:  I love everything about this guy except shaking the umpires' hands before the games.  Many college athletes formally shake the opposing coach's hand before a game.  (We have a JUCO in town that requires it from both sides).  They would never do the same for the officials.  As stated by HokieUmp, regardless of the intent behind it, BAD OPTICS.  When I was much younger, I was royally reprimanded by my crew chief before a NFHS District Tournament game for offering to help a coach and player line the field because they appeared to be severely short on help.  The reasoning, of course, was BAD OPTICS.  Asking for trouble.  I ditched them.

2) I feel like Cato and GreyHawk were not so much in disagreement, as they are simply two men who set the bar at different heights.  Two men with a different level of expectation.  Cato, I am old.  I have no idea how OLD you are, or how YOUNG, GreyHawk is, but I side with GreyHawk as an official.  I feel that a large problem with the officiating in just about every association with which I have been affiliated is setting the bar too low ... and it either comes from lazy kids coming in, or jaded veterans who think they are "maturing" and being more realistic is dropping the expectations ... such as your example with the check swing (mathematics lesson later).  If I were putting together my crew for a NFHS State Tournament Game, or the 3rd Saturday of 11u Travel Ball, I'm choosing GreyHawk, and I'm hoping I don't have to be on the field with the guy who says, "Come on, Coach, let's be real ... I can't be expected to see every check swing -- especially when there's a steal."  Really?  In my training, this was a point of emphasis ... NEVER (as GreyHawk and ALStripes17 eluded to) take your eye off the ball and start moving too soon in this sitch.  There is PLENTY of time to do both.  And if you're trained properly, and if you take it seriously, then you won't lean on easy outs such as, "I can't catch everything!  I'm human!"  We all know that.  That's absolutely not the point.

3) Minnz makes one of the best points in the thread with his suggestion that the PU be more liberal (I would use the word assertive) in self-appealing this call. 

    a) Because it's just a good idea considering the situation.

    b) Because every umpire training school trains us to do this.

    c) Because if you read the OBR book, it's actually stated.

4) The OBR book does refer to the fact that we "can't see everything" and the phrase that is most oft quoted is (my paraphrase), "It is more iimportant to keep your eye on the ball to rule a catch/no-catch than whether the runner touched 2nd base."  We can add a dozen examples ... but they would be examples where it is physically impossible in a two man crew to see behind you.  A common one is a coach calling for Obstruction at 1B while the pitch is on the way and both umps are focusing on the ball, and not F3.  Missing a check swing?  No. No way.  YES, we all do it.  NO, it is not acceptable.  As soon as it becomes acceptable, it will be missed twice as often.

5) Joe Morgan, when working for ESPN, once stated, "He was out by half a step.  That's a lot in baseball."  And, he's right.  We shouldn't refer to a play as a BANG/BANG play where the runner is out or safe by half a step.  The thing that made the 1985 WS Gm 6 Denkinger missed call so egregious is that the replay showed the batter/runner was out by half a step.  If he was out by an eighth of a step, Denkinger would never have been ridiculed in the same fashion.  (I'm one who feels sorry for Denkinger to this day, because that is likely the toughest call in baseball when three objects are converging on one point -- moving runner's foot, the moving fielder's foot (who's catching the throw), and the ball from moving fielder (who's making the throw) -- and he is counting on his "ear" for the "sound" of the ball hitting the glove ... and there's no sound.

So what's my point?  A half of a step is about 0.10 seconds.  So what's a bang/bang play? 0.02 seconds?  Less?  The average "pop time" for MLB catchers (The time it takes from when the pitch POPS the mitt until the throw POPS the glove at 2B to catch a stealing runner) is something like 1.8 seconds, with the very best being around 1.6 seconds.  1.6 seconds (That would have to be Yadier Molina???) is 16 times longer than the half step (which we would agree is "a lot" in baseball.)  The end of the check swing to the time the ball pops the mitt at 2B in most HS games is going to be more than 2 seconds. 

No one can defend not being able to do both ... 2+ seconds apart.  (You call bangers all the time that you're expected to get right).

Nobody should get away with saying, "I have to concentrate on one or the other, Coach ... he was stealing.  The check swing is not a primary concern."  Hogwash.

Nobody should ever use age as a bully pulpit to try to make their point unless you're correcting your own stubborn child.  I was offended, Cato, by your making the assumption that GreyHawk is "young" and therefore implying that he is not seasoned enough ... or he is still too "idealistic" to admit or realize that this play is understandably missed.  If you are my partner, and you miss this play, both ends of it, and you fully admit you kicked it, fine ... I'm cool ... I'll have your back.  If you say something like you quoted above to the coach, you leave me with very little choice but to look at you with a look of amazement ... like, "Did he really just say that?"

OUT