Check swings

[HokieUmp]

Two different things I wanted to ask/discuss:

1.  This may be hard to describe, but it's happened twice this year to me.  I've ruled it the same way both times, and both times, coaches seemed to take bigger issue with it than I thought.  It may be hard to describe in words.  Batter decides not to swing at and/or tries to avoid a pitch that's coming in high and tight, and turns his upper body around, so that his chest is pointing more at the mound.  Thing is, he's kept his hands tight to his chest.

So, if you're just going by the barrel of the bat, it DOES go around, simply because his upper body does, and the bat follows.  (And that's what all the non-umpires at the game want to key on.)  But since the criteria is ACTUALLY "does the batter strike at the ball?", I don't feel like he has, so when my plate guy has come to me, it's been "No, he didn't!"   I've felt he hasn't extended his arms to strike at the ball.  Even if you want to take out the arm-extension thought, I've seen nothing to convince me he's tried to strike at it.

Thus, the first question:  from that description, as bad as it might be, what says the congregation?

2.  Both times, the DHC wants to chat.  They start to talk to the plate guy, who refers them out to me.  Once, simply because my plate guy had F2 stand up at the wrong moment, so he really got no look at all, and just sent the coach to me.  The other time, it was "the check swing appeal is his call."  I've let the coach schlep all the way to me, and then we've talked.  Both guys talked about the barrel:  one talked about "swung to completion" whatever the hell that means, and the talked about how far around.  To that first guy, I just said variations of "that's not how I saw it, skip;"  the other, I said he didn't strike at the ball.  (That one said something about it being pitiful, and a terrible call, but it wasn't said as ME being pitiful or terrible AND he was walking away - which is what I want - so nothing to get fired up about.)

But we get to the second question:  should I even be having this discussion with the HC?  I mean, at the heart of it, he's arguing balls and strikes, so should I just SAY that, and tell him I'm not having an argument about balls and strikes, so he needs to not even approach?  Should I let him get all the way there, and THEN say we're not having that chat?  Part of me says I shouldn't entertain debate at all, since it's a balls and strikes thing.  Another part of me says it's more a mechanics deal, so they should at least be allowed to ask, and receive my response, and maybe just limit how much they can talk before pulling the "balls/strikes" card.

For full disclosure, 1) I'm okay with saying these aren't swings, and 2) I've been okay with letting coaches come out, since it hasn't blown up to anything big.  (At least one of the two times, it felt like it was a varsity coach testing a guy he's never seen before, to see what would happen.)

Thanks.

[Replacematt]

1. You've nailed the criteria. Either you felt he attempted to strike at the ball or he didn't. Since you didn't feel that way, those aren't swings.

2. Read the situation. The bottom line is the criteria in 1. Don't discuss what did or did not happen. If they persist, remind them (using whatever is appropriate for the time) that they are arguing balls and strikes. In neither of these cases is it a mechanics question...it's a question of what happened and how you're judging it.

And in either case, if I'm PU, I'm telling HC that if he wants to talk to you, he'd better keep in mind he's discussing balls and strikes. That way, if it goes south, he can't claim ignorance.

[ricka56]

1. For me, if the batter started to swing, then spins away as you describe, then I have a strike. I can't distinguish where the swing stopped and the pitch avoidance started. So I call that a strike. But, as I read it, that's not what you are describing, If all he did was try to avoid a pitch, then I don't have a strike. Forget about what the coaches say, all they want is it their way. 

2. If I'm the PU and HC asks to go talk to my partner about B/S, I wouldn't let him. "we're not discussing B/S calls". If my PU partner allowed him to come talk to me, I'd say, "I don't have an attempt to strike at the pitch". That's all I've got to say and end the convo ASAP. Post game, I'd ask my partner why he let HC come to talk to me about B/S.  

[Replacematt]

22 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

1. For me, if the batter started to swing, then spins away as you describe, then I have a strike. I can't distinguish where the swing stopped and the pitch avoidance started. So I call that a strike. But, as I read it, that's not what you are describing, If all he did was try to avoid a pitch, then I don't have a strike. Forget about what the coaches say, all they want is it their way. 

2. If I'm the PU and HC asks to go talk to my partner about B/S, I wouldn't let him. "we're not discussing B/S calls". If my PU partner allowed him to come talk to me, I'd say, "I don't have an attempt to strike at the pitch". That's all I've got to say and end the convo ASAP. Post game, I'd ask my partner why he let HC come to talk to me about B/S.  

Here's why I have a different approach on 2: It's not my job to be a gatekeeper. If he wants to go to BU and run the risk of being run, that's on him. I trust that my partner knows what's acceptable and what's not. There is no superiority between PU and BU, and by not letting my partner have the final say on his call, I'm stealing that part of his authority.

[indianaumpire15]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

Here's why I have a different approach on 2: It's not my job to be a gatekeeper. If he wants to go to BU and run the risk of being run, that's on him. I trust that my partner knows what's acceptable and what's not. There is no superiority between PU and BU, and by not letting my partner have the final say on his call, I'm stealing that part of his authority.

Agreed.  I know different umpires handle things differently, but in my experience and all my clinic/camp experience, I have been taught by instructors, umpires who are much better and more advanced than I, is that the need to be approachable when a coach is calm and respectful in amateur sports is paramount to good game management.  The coach coming out to talk to you about a judgment call, in and of itself, is not arguing.  Once he's out there and you explain you did not have a swing attempt, then the onus is on him for the direction the conservation goes from that point.

Not allowing coaches to come out because we think we know what is going to be brought up is bad practice.  What if he comes out and says I'm just asking because I want my pitcher to think I'm fighting for him but I think you're right or honestly I have no idea what the call should have been from my angle.  Don't assume, answer legit questions, explain clearly and concisely, and urge the coach to move on if you have to.

Dismissing a coach who wants to ask a question in the correct way, is a good way to cause issues that otherwise might not have come about.  Optics is a big part of amateur umpiring these days, especially at the HS and college levels, and being mindful of that can help us manage games and the game personnel much better.

[noumpere]

On point 2:  As long as the coach is discussing a rule ("we agree the barrel went past the plate so by rule that has to be a swing") I'll entertain the question, once.  As soon as it gets into judgment, or if he persists on the first part -- go to the arguing balls and strikes discussion and then get to the warning.

[NorthTexasUmp]

"Coach, there was no intent to hit the ball"

[maven]

12 minutes ago, NorthTexasUmp said:

"Coach, there was no intent to hit the ball"

That's irrelevant. He can swing without intending to hit the ball, or change his mind too late.

[basejester]

1 hour ago, maven said:

That's irrelevant.

I'm astonished that you believe that.

 

[ALStripes17]

I'm astonished that you believe that.

 

Semantics ... we want to use 'struck at the ball' in this scenario... 'intent' is not a good word to use in a convo here

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Man_In_Black]

Agree that this is a HTBT scenario, but here's something to think about...

What if the ball had actually hit the bat and landed fair? Would you kill the play because he wasn't really "striking at the ball"? Like the saying goes: "If you believe there is a heaven, then you have to believe there is a hell." If you'd allow play to continue if the ball was struck, one could reasonably argue that if not struck, it would have to constitute a swing.

When a guy hits the deck on a pitch coming at his head and doesn't get the bat down in time...and the beanball hits the bat, we rule it a foul ball. In this case, there is also no "striking at the ball" or "offering at the pitch", so why do we penalize the batter with a strike and reward the pitcher for a crappy (not to mention dangerous) pitch?

Not advocating one view over the other, just giving some food for thought.

 

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, Man_In_Black said:

Agree that this is a HTBT scenario, but here's something to think about...

What if the ball had actually hit the bat and landed fair? Would you kill the play because he wasn't really "striking at the ball"? Like the saying goes: "If you believe there is a heaven, then you have to believe there is a hell." If you'd allow play to continue if the ball was struck, one could reasonably argue that if not struck, it would have to constitute a swing.

When a guy hits the deck on a pitch coming at his head and doesn't get the bat down in time...and the beanball hits the bat, we rule it a foul ball. In this case, there is also no "striking at the ball" or "offering at the pitch", so why do we penalize the batter with a strike and reward the pitcher for a crappy (not to mention dangerous) pitch?

Not advocating one view over the other, just giving some food for thought.

 

Uh, no.

A ball that hits the bat is always a batted ball, no matter if the bat moved, didn't move, held over his head, etc. Your example is not true, either--we rule it fair or foul based on what happens next.

I really hope you're not killing plays when there's an unintentionally batted ball.

[ALStripes17]

Agree that this is a HTBT scenario, but here's something to think about...

What if the ball had actually hit the bat and landed fair? Would you kill the play because he wasn't really "striking at the ball"? Like the saying goes: "If you believe there is a heaven, then you have to believe there is a hell." If you'd allow play to continue if the ball was struck, one could reasonably argue that if not struck, it would have to constitute a swing.

When a guy hits the deck on a pitch coming at his head and doesn't get the bat down in time...and the beanball hits the bat, we rule it a foul ball. In this case, there is also no "striking at the ball" or "offering at the pitch", so why do we penalize the batter with a strike and reward the pitcher for a crappy (not to mention dangerous) pitch?

Not advocating one view over the other, just giving some food for thought.

 

Not the same realm at all. Check swing appeals are not batted balls.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Man_In_Black]

36 minutes ago, Matt said:

I really hope you're not killing plays when there's an unintentionally batted ball.

Heh...of course not.

I was merely providing an argument as to why one might rule the incident in the original post a swing, as opposed to his judging that the batter was merely trying to avoid the pitch and his bat happened to move through the hitting zone as a result of his upper body movement. I can see a case for both sides of the argument. It's a judgment call. The OP used his judgment when asked by the PU to rule on the swing.

31 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Not the same realm at all. Check swing appeals are not batted balls.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I understand this. My point was, the OP admitted himself that the barrel of the bat went around. But his decision as to whether to actually grant the appeal was based on his judgment that the batter did not attempt to really swing...he was just trying to get out of the way...not whether the bat went around. I'm just saying that one could argue that "intent to swing" here is irrelevant and shouldn't be a criterion. Some believe if the bat goes around, you have to rule it a swing. Just like you have to rule a foul ball when a batter bails on a high and tight pitch and leaves the bat up. Should "intent" play a role? That's all I was tossing out there for discussion. I wasn't trying to imply that HokieUmp did the wrong thing...he had a split second to decide, and he relied on his judgment. That's all any of us can do.

[Aging_Arbiter]

@HokieUmp, see what you've gone and done?!? 

 

By the way "In My Judgment, the batter was/was not attempting to hit the ball", has always worked for me.  You're judgment.

[basejester]

11 minutes ago, Man_In_Black said:

I understand this. My point was, the OP admitted himself that the barrel of the bat went around. But his decision as to whether to actually grant the appeal was based on his judgment that the batter did not attempt to really swing...he was just trying to get out of the way...not whether the bat went around. I'm just saying that one could argue that "intent to swing" here is irrelevant and shouldn't be a criterion. Some believe if the bat goes around, you have to rule it a swing. Just like you have to rule a foul ball when a batter bails on a high and tight pitch and leaves the bat up. Should "intent" play a role? That's all I was tossing out there for discussion. I wasn't trying to imply that HokieUmp did the wrong thing...he had a split second to decide, and he relied on his judgment. That's all any of us can do.

I agree that some actions do not require judgement of intent.  A ball is objectively either batted fair or not.

"Striking at" does require judgement of intent.  There is no objective definition of where the bat moves to determine this.

[maven]

This isn't that hard. A batter who starts his swing and checks it intends NOT to swing.

If he stops the swing soon enough, it doesn't matter that he first intended to swing. It's a check swing, and we rule on the pitch. Intent to offer is not sufficient for a swing.

If he doesn't stop the swing soon enough, it doesn't matter that he changed his mind and intended not to swing. It's a swing, and we rule accordingly. Intent to offer is not necessary for a swing.

I suppose at some point he must have intended to offer, but he need not persist in that intention in order to rule that he did so.

[Replacematt]

49 minutes ago, Man_In_Black said:

Heh...of course not.

I was merely providing an argument as to why one might rule the incident in the original post a swing, as opposed to his judging that the batter was merely trying to avoid the pitch and his bat happened to move through the hitting zone as a result of his upper body movement. I can see a case for both sides of the argument. It's a judgment call. The OP used his judgment when asked by the PU to rule on the swing.

I understand this. My point was, the OP admitted himself that the barrel of the bat went around. But his decision as to whether to actually grant the appeal was based on his judgment that the batter did not attempt to really swing...he was just trying to get out of the way...not whether the bat went around. I'm just saying that one could argue that "intent to swing" here is irrelevant and shouldn't be a criterion. Some believe if the bat goes around, you have to rule it a swing. Just like you have to rule a foul ball when a batter bails on a high and tight pitch and leaves the bat up. Should "intent" play a role? That's all I was tossing out there for discussion. I wasn't trying to imply that HokieUmp did the wrong thing...he had a split second to decide, and he relied on his judgment. That's all any of us can do.

And they would be wrong, by rule. Protestable.