Strike Three?

[ElkOil]

I have a hard time believing I would make this same call. 

http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/weird-minor-league-strikeout-likely-the-most-bizarre-yo-1795606023

[stkjock]

Also here 

 

 

[BrianC14]

Plate umpire was in my high school association.   

[ElkOil]

Dang! Sorry -- I didn't see the previous post.

[KenBAZ]

There has to be more to this then what we are seeing. Do we judge this as an attempt to hit that pitch?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

It was a pitch. He swung. It's a strike.

 

Why think it's different than swinging at an IBB pirch?

[yoitsrc]

pitch + swing = strike.  regardless of pitch location...  granted there is always more to the store however if you watch the timing of the swing of the bat it is in time with when the pitch crosses the pate.

[mrumpiresir]

This is not an attempt to strike the pitch.  I would not consider this a strike.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, mrumpiresir said:

This is not an attempt to strike the pitch.  I would not consider this a strike.

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which:
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

It doesn't say "attempt to strike the pitch"  It says "struck at"

How far away does the pitch have to be for you to rule this was not struck at?

[basejester]

19 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which:
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

It doesn't say "attempt to strike the pitch"  It says "struck at"

How far away does the pitch have to be for you to rule this was not struck at?

"Was he shooting at Mr. Johnson?"

"No, Mr. Johnson was hit by a stray bullet."
 

I hear intent in "at", which is clearly the way bunts are interpreted; it's not the position of the bat.

 

[ElkOil]

It looked to me that the batter was taking a warm-up swing more than anything else. I do not believe the pitch was struck at or that he intended to hit the ball. Does merely waving the bat in space constitute a strike?

[ElkOil]

Thank you, @Gil for being Johnny-on-the-spot. Good conversation feeder.

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/05/milb-strikeout-definition-of-swing.html

 

[mrumpiresir]

6 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which:
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

It doesn't say "attempt to strike the pitch"  It says "struck at"

How far away does the pitch have to be for you to rule this was not struck at?

Do you seriously believe the batter struck at the pitch?  That's all the umpire should consider.

[BrianC14]

He struck at a legal pitch.   

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, mrumpiresir said:

Do you seriously believe the batter struck at the pitch?  That's all the umpire should consider.

He struck at a pitch.  That's all that matters. 

Unless there's a distance limit.  What is it?  I can't find it in the book.

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

He struck at a pitch.  That's all that matters. 

Unless there's a distance limit.  What is it?  I can't find it in the book.

Following that logic, how do you determine when a batter takes a pitch and takes his next warm-up swing as opposed to swinging  really, really late on a pitch? Is there a time limit? I can't find that in the book, either. Yet time and again, batters take pitches for balls, then take practice swings in the box and we don't call them strikes. I see no difference here other than this particular instance is atypical.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, ElkOil said:

Following that logic, how do you determine when a batter takes a pitch and takes his next warm-up swing as opposed to swinging  really, really late on a pitch? Is there a time limit? I can't find that in the book, either. Yet time and again, batters take pitches for balls, then take practice swings in the box and we don't call them strikes. I see no difference here other than this particular instance is atypical.

There is no pitch at the time of the swing in your comparison. 

[noumpere]

Wasn't there a college video question a few years ago where the batter "swung" (or not -- that was the question) really late at a pitch with a runner stealing?  Wasn't the ruling, "charge him with a strike?"

In any event, I'd apply the same ruling to this play with the slipped pitch.

 

Heck, who's to say a "smarter" batter wouldn't *want* this to be a strike so he could try for first?

[mrumpiresir]

I think it would come down to the umpire's judgement as to whether or not he offered at the pitch.  In my opinion he didn't.  How well will it go for a coach arguing a judgement call?

[kylehutson]

5 hours ago, Matt said:

There is no pitch at the time of the swing in your comparison. 

I've seen (youth levels), where a batter didn't begin to swing until the ball was in the catcher's glove. Yet, in my judgment, it was a legitimate attempt to hit the ball. I've called those strikes even though technically "there is no pitch at the time of the swing" in that case.

I've also had pitches float way outside, and the batter, while the pitch is still in the air, relax and let the barrel of the bat fall through the strike zone. In those cases, I have called those pitches balls.

This one is slightly different in that the batter doesn't just let the bat fall. I would still be inclined to call it a ball under the same theory that a bunt held perfectly still on a bad pitch is not an attempt. It wasn't an attempt to hit the ball.

[Rich Ives]

12 hours ago, ElkOil said:

Following that logic, how do you determine when a batter takes a pitch and takes his next warm-up swing as opposed to swinging  really, really late on a pitch? Is there a time limit? I can't find that in the book, either. Yet time and again, batters take pitches for balls, then take practice swings in the box and we don't call them strikes. I see no difference here other than this particular instance is atypical.

Once the catcher has the ball the pitch is over so a swing them is not an attempt to hit the pitch because there is no pitch.

[beerguy55]

nfw he struck "at" the pitch.  It was a joke, and meant to be a joke.  Ultimately, it's a judgment call, and IMO that was poor judgment.

 

The funny part is, the rule says that a pitch that slips out of the hand and crosses the foul line is a "ball"...not "ball, unless struck at" or "legal pitch to be ruled a ball or strike"

[Stk004]

On 5/28/2017 at 9:46 PM, Rich Ives said:

He struck at a pitch.  That's all that matters. 

Unless there's a distance limit.  What is it?  I can't find it in the book.

The distance limit is either foul line, as beerguy alludes to. This umpire clearly understood that, because he doesn't point in a "yes he did" fashion until the ball crosses the foul line, then gives his swinging third strike point, then finally the hammer out after the tag is applied. 

[Rich Ives]

8 hours ago, Stk004 said:

The distance limit is either foul line, as beerguy alludes to. This umpire clearly understood that, because he doesn't point in a "yes he did" fashion until the ball crosses the foul line, then gives his swinging third strike point, then finally the hammer out after the tag is applied. 

I meant away from the batter. How far away before it's deemed not an attempt? That is he issue being promulgated here - it was too far away to consider it an attempt. So what is that distance?

The ump had to wait until it crossed the foul line because that made it a pitch.  And don't try to say that it thus wasn't an offer at a pitch.  Every swing starts before the ball crosses a foul line.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

I meant away from the batter. How far away before it's deemed not an attempt? That is he issue being promulgated here - it was too far away to consider it an attempt. So what is that distance?

.

I think it's 60', 70', 80' or 90', depending on the specific rules code being used.