Check Swing

[Husker]

1) bases loaded - one out - full count

2) next pitch - home plate umpire calls ball four on a check swing

3) batter takes first and all base runners advance scoring one run

4) catcher asks the home plate umpire to appeal the check swing with field umpire

5) field umpire says the batter swung - strike three (two outs) 

Question: is this a live ball (runner scores) or a dead ball (all runners return to the base at the time of the pitch)?

NFHS rules imply this is a live ball but it is not specified very well. 

[noumpere]

19 hours ago, Husker said:

1) bases loaded - one out - full count

2) next pitch - home plate umpire calls ball four on a check swing

3) batter takes first and all base runners advance scoring one run

4) catcher asks the home plate umpire to appeal the check swing with field umpire

5) field umpire says the batter swung - strike three (two outs) 

Question: is this a live ball (runner scores) or a dead ball (all runners return to the base at the time of the pitch)?

NFHS rules imply this is a live ball but it is not specified very well. 

(Incorrect information removed)

[beerguy55]

40 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Live ball, run scores (and if any runners had been tagged while not touching a base, they would be out.  Heck, if R1 had been tagged, then R3 touches the plate, then the appeal is made, no runs would score)

For the newbies - Important to note here that the strikeout occurs at the time the swing happened, not when the umpire ruled it was a swing...making the B/R the second out, regardless of what events happened before the appeal was completed.

In the scenario, the run doesn't score because R1 made the third out before R3 scored, NOT because the B/R made the third out (they didn't).

[FourthOut]

NFHS rules imply live ball, but if this is NFHS, wouldn't Rule 10-2-3l come into play here?

The umpire in chief's duties include those listed in 10-2-1, 10-2-2 and the following... L. Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage.

Here, the defensive team is at a disadvantage since they believed the runners were entitled to advance one base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the proper means of rectifying this situation would be to send the runners back to their previous bases.

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, FourthOut said:

NFHS rules imply live ball, but if this is NFHS, wouldn't Rule 10-2-3l come into play here?

The umpire in chief's duties include those listed in 10-2-1, 10-2-2 and the following... L. Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage.

Here, the defensive team is at a disadvantage since they believed the runners were entitled to advance one base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the proper means of rectifying this situation would be to send the runners back to their previous bases.

I don't see this as reversing a decision. Check swing appeals aren't the PU "getting it wrong" in the sense that 10-2-3L is meant to cover.

The defense was put at a disadvantage because of their own delay in appealing  the swing.

Not saying the umps are absolved. There has been recent discussion of the "voluntary strike" (BU proactively opines on the check swing). Patrick covered it here:

 

[jimurrayalterego]

35 minutes ago, Velho said:

I don't see this as reversing a decision. Check swing appeals aren't the PU "getting it wrong" in the sense that 10-2-3L is meant to cover.

The defense was put at a disadvantage because of their own delay in appealing  the swing.

Not saying the umps are absolved. There has been recent discussion of the "voluntary strike" (BU proactively opines on the check swing). Patrick covered it here:

 

 

46 minutes ago, FourthOut said:

NFHS rules imply live ball, but if this is NFHS, wouldn't Rule 10-2-3l come into play here?

The umpire in chief's duties include those listed in 10-2-1, 10-2-2 and the following... L. Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage.

Here, the defensive team is at a disadvantage since they believed the runners were entitled to advance one base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the proper means of rectifying this situation would be to send the runners back to their previous bases.

 

35 minutes ago, Velho said:

I don't see this as reversing a decision. Check swing appeals aren't the PU "getting it wrong" in the sense that 10-2-3L is meant to cover.

The defense was put at a disadvantage because of their own delay in appealing  the swing.

Not saying the umps are absolved. There has been recent discussion of the "voluntary strike" (BU proactively opines on the check swing). Patrick covered it here:

 

FED caseplays 10.2.3.h and i (2020 version) allow you to rectify a "reversed" check swing. OBR and NCAA warn you that offense or defense can be in jeopardy when a check swing is appealed. 

[SeeingEyeDog]

So, in other words...we may have found an example of a situation where PU could choose NOT to appeal the swing because it was so delayed...

~Dawg

[noumpere]

I apologize for giving the incorrect information above.  I blame jet lag.

 

These case plays (the current numbers might be slightly different) are on point:

10.2.3 SITUATION H: With a count of three balls and two strikes on B2 and R1 on first base, the batter takes what appears to be a half swing. The plate umpire calls ball four and R1, upon hearing ball four, then trots to second base. The catcher throws the ball to F4 who tags R1 before he reaches base. The catcher asks the plate umpire to check with the base umpire to see if B2 did, in fact, attempt to hit the pitch. The base umpire indicates that the batter did swing at the ball. RULING: The plate umpire will declare the batter out and return R1 to first base. The umpire-in-chief can rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed a base runner in jeopardy.

 

10.2.3 SITUATION I: With a count of three balls and two strikes on B1 and no runners on base, the pitch is made and the batter takes what appears to be a half swing. The plate umpire calls ball four as the ball gets away from F2. B1 trots to first base and F2 throws the ball to F3, who tags B1 prior to his reaching the base. F2 asks the plate umpire to check with the base umpire to see if it was a strike. The base umpire indicates that B1 did swing at the ball. RULING: If, in the judgment of the umpire-in-chief, B1 would have reached first base before the throw if it had not been called ball four, the plate umpire can award B1 first base. The umpire-in-chief can rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision has placed a batter-runner in jeopardy. Advances and outs made by runners following a reversed call stand, if the call that was changed clearly did not place them in jeopardy.

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

These case plays (the current numbers might be slightly different) are on point:

10.2.3 SITUATION H: With a count of three balls and two strikes on B2 and R1 on first base, the batter takes what appears to be a half swing. The plate umpire calls ball four and R1, upon hearing ball four, then trots to second base. The catcher throws the ball to F4 who tags R1 before he reaches base. The catcher asks the plate umpire to check with the base umpire to see if B2 did, in fact, attempt to hit the pitch. The base umpire indicates that the batter did swing at the ball. RULING: The plate umpire will declare the batter out and return R1 to first base. The umpire-in-chief can rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed a base runner in jeopardy.

Wow, that's terrible.

So, what about the runners that all successfully advance, if not score?

Seems to be a double standard in this rule set, if there aren't other case plays addressing this, since the umpire's decision is also placing the defense in jeopardy.  They're otherwise creating a situation that encourages the defense to tag all runners, just in case.  That at least ensures they get sent back to their original base...with the added side effect of pissing runners off, and potentially starting something.

Bottom line, on ball four nothing is requiring R1 to "immediately" go, nor, if he is stealing, slow down.

[Tborze]

On 4/9/2025 at 1:36 PM, beerguy55 said:

For the newbies - Important to note here that the strikeout occurs at the time the swing happened, not when the umpire ruled it was a swing...making the B/R the second out, regardless of what events happened before the appeal was completed.

In the scenario, the run doesn't score because R1 made the third out before R3 scored, NOT because the B/R made the third out (they didn't).

 

[MadMax]

I loathe how NFHS uses a heaping amount of spackle, bondo, and ready-patch to mitigate the teetering disaster that is their deification of PU as UIC, ie. “god”. 

Just about every ugly bit adjacent to or caused by check swing appeals can be alleviated by the following directive to PUs → take your sanctimonious pride out of yer a$$ and just go down (make the appeal) to your BU! Do it! Chop, chop! 

Really. This is such a load of 🐎 💩. Neither NCAA nor OBR allow for this “right of refusal” (ie. refusing a request for check swing appeals), so why does Fed? Still?! 

I’m not calling “bogus” on @Husker’s OP situation, but I really question its veracity, mostly because – in what universe does a PU ignore a (potential) “check swing”, call Ball 4, allow and observe all Runners – including the Batter-Runner – to advance 1 base… and then acknowledge and enact a check swing appeal?  It takes the swiftest of Pro baseball players just at-or-under 4 seconds to travel 90 feet. 

Ya hear that? Ya got 4 whole seconds (really, you just need 1, maybe 2) to make the appeal. Do it! Make it, of your own accord! Or, at the very least, stick to your stodgy Fed-issued guns and deny the appeal! But quit this un-engaged crap. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 4/9/2025 at 2:05 PM, FourthOut said:

NFHS rules imply live ball, but if this is NFHS, wouldn't Rule 10-2-3l come into play here?

The umpire in chief's duties include those listed in 10-2-1, 10-2-2 and the following... L. Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage.

Here, the defensive team is at a disadvantage since they believed the runners were entitled to advance one base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the proper means of rectifying this situation would be to send the runners back to their previous bases.

You are not wrong!

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, MadMax said:

I loathe how NFHS uses a heaping amount of spackle, bondo, and ready-patch to mitigate the teetering disaster that is their deification of PU as UIC, ie. “god”. 

Just about every ugly bit adjacent to or caused by check swing appeals can be alleviated by the following directive to PUs → take your sanctimonious pride out of yer a$$ and just go down (make the appeal) to your BU! Do it! Chop, chop! 

Really. This is such a load of 🐎 💩. Neither NCAA nor OBR allow for this “right of refusal” (ie. refusing a request for check swing appeals), so why does Fed? Still?! 

I’m not calling “bogus” on @Husker’s OP situation, but I really question its veracity, mostly because – in what universe does a PU ignore a (potential) “check swing”, call Ball 4, allow and observe all Runners – including the Batter-Runner – to advance 1 base… and then acknowledge and enact a check swing appeal?  It takes the swiftest of Pro baseball players just at-or-under 4 seconds to travel 90 feet. 

Ya hear that? Ya got 4 whole seconds (really, you just need 1, maybe 2) to make the appeal. Do it! Make it, of your own accord! Or, at the very least, stick to your stodgy Fed-issued guns and deny the appeal! But quit this un-engaged crap. 

This!  And I’ll add, if I’m on the bases, and my PU waits that long to come to me (and we’re not using a voluntary strike mechanic) The chances of me having a swing are pretty slim. It would need to be almost a full swing…..especially if I’m in the middle. I’d rather shut down the DHC barking about a check swing not called a swing, than starting the 💩show that ensues after I say “yes he did”