IST Cubs at Mets

[theberserkfury]

That's probably the rule that there is the least amount of knowledge on across baseball. It's not if the barrel crosses the front of the plate or if the wrists break, or whatever the other misconceptions about the rule are. It's whether or not they meant to hit the ball. That's all that it is. It is annoying when they get the view from the side because it's irrelevant.

It's also the home plate umpire's call first and foremost. He is the one that should be making the call. He has a much better view of the batter being closer, thus can tell if he intended to hit the ball or not.

I'm actually not seeing any rule stated at all... I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but here's what it says on it...

"The Major League Baseball rulebook does not contain an official definition for a checked swing, merely stating that a swing either does or does not occur; it is the decision of the umpire as to which is the case. Generally, factors such as whether the bat passes the front of the plate or the batter pulls his wrists back are considered in the ruling. Some umpires prefer to use the "breaking the wrists" criterion as the method to decide a checked swing: if the wrists "rolled over", a swing occurred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checked_swing

 

[Parade_Rain]

We call it "offer". IOW, did he "offer" at the pitch.

 

[nwfisch]

I'm actually not seeing any rule stated at all...

CO umpires pee-wee baseball, so he knows everything about umpiring.

 

[JZsportsfan]

Alcantara hasn't looked good since his first week up. Baez struggling as well but he is working deeper into counts and his struggles were expected.

Starting to worry a bit about Alcantara.

Hendricks current numbers aren't sustainable but do you guys think he could be a MOR arm moving forward?

 

[Captain Obvious]

CO umpires pee-wee baseball, so he knows everything about umpiring.

College... but you're close!

 

[Captain Obvious]

I'm actually not seeing any rule stated at all... I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but here's what it says on it...

"The Major League Baseball rulebook does not contain an official definition for a checked swing, merely stating that a swing either does or does not occur; it is the decision of the umpire as to which is the case. Generally, factors such as whether the bat passes the front of the plate or the batter pulls his wrists back are considered in the ruling. Some umpires prefer to use the "breaking the wrists" criterion as the method to decide a checked swing: if the wrists "rolled over", a swing occurred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checked_swing

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike
zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip

So it is a judgement call whether or not it was struck at.

 

[theberserkfury]

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike
zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip

So it is a judgement call whether or not it was struck at.

Ah, ok. So umps use the wrists/barrel of the bat/whatever as ways to make that judgment call... so it makes sense that they check with another ump when they can't tell if those things happened.

 

[Captain Obvious]

From page 104 of the PBUC Umpire Manual

The umpire's decision on a check swing shall be based entirely on his judgement as to whether or not the batter struck at the pitch.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Ah, ok. So umps use the wrists/barrel of the bat/whatever as ways to make that judgment call... so it makes sense that they check with another ump when they can't tell if those things happened.

Some do, some don't. What I have been taught at the college level is to just think did he mean to hit the ball. Which doesn't really give much information to you. But it's a visual thing that is more abstract than wrists/barrel. I don't think I've been very clear, but it's a very hard thing to put into words. Let me look for some more literature on it.

 

[nwfisch]

Some do, some don't. What I have been taught at the college level is to just think did he mean to hit the ball. Which doesn't really give much information to you. But it's a visual thing that is more abstract than wrists/barrel. I don't think I've been very clear, but it's a very hard thing to put into words. Let me look for some more literature on it.

:rofl:

gold.

 

[Parade_Rain]

From page 104 of the PBUC Umpire Manual

So IOW, whether he "offered" at the pitch, be it a bunt attempt or swing.

 

[SilenceS]

Well, considering there have been 3 check swing calls that went against the Cubs this series called by the homeplate umpire and all 3 were incorrect. The Mets announcers even said they werent swings. The problem with having the homeplate umpire judging is he is watching the ball all the way into the glove then trying to see how far the swing went as well as judging if he meant to swing. Well, I am sorry that is dumb for the home plate umpire to make the decision. You have help on both sides. I have seen umpires all my life give way for help on those calls and in this series the umpires behind the plate made those calls. Like I said, Baez, Coughlan, and I want to say Castro were all rung up on calls that there should have been helped asked for.

 

[Bear Pride]

That's probably the rule that there is the least amount of knowledge on across baseball. It's not if the barrel crosses the front of the plate or if the wrists break, or whatever the other misconceptions about the rule are. It's whether or not they meant to hit the ball. That's all that it is. It is annoying when they get the view from the side because it's irrelevant.

It's also the home plate umpire's call first and foremost. He is the one that should be making the call. He has a much better view of the batter being closer, thus can tell if he intended to hit the ball or not.

LOLWUT! That's complete BS. It's whether or not the bat crosses the sideline. Why do you think they ask the 1st/3rd base umpires? Cuz they can see if the bat crossed the line.

 

[Parade_Rain]

That is an old fairy tale.

 

[Bear Pride]

That is an old fairy tale.

Every ump I've known looks to see if the bat crossed the foul line. I do agree, however, that the rule does state that it is the umps call. The rule doesn't state much. But again ask any base ump, and they'll tell you they're looking for the bat to cross the foul line.

 

[brett05]

Thr foul line??? No one will look for that. Its the front of the plate. The foul lines would be an almost complete swing

 

[Bear Pride]

Thr foul line??? No one will look for that. Its the front of the plate. The foul lines would be an almost complete swing

How is a base ump gonna see that? :dunno:

 

[Parade_Rain]

Every ump I've known looks to see if the bat crossed the foul line. I do agree, however, that the rule does state that it is the umps call. The rule doesn't state much. But again ask any base ump, and they'll tell you they're looking for the bat to cross the foul line.

Many umps, especially FU, look to see that the bat got in front of the wrists.

 

[brett05]

How is a base ump gonna see that? :dunno:

They can't which is why generally the appeal dumb unless they didn't focus on the bat

 

[Bear Pride]

Many umps, especially FU, look to see that the bat got in front of the wrists.

This makes more sense to me. But if the bat gets to the front of the plate, it would generally be pointing at the foul line. This makes the most sense to me as it's "in play". It's absolutely an ambiguous rule, I agree, and we could debate for ever.

I think good hitters check a lot, imo. Imo, looking at the bat cross the foul line is the only thing that is visible proof. You could challenge that on replay actually. People have looked at it that way for years. It's definitely a rule that could use some clarification.