He is not there ti determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
I doubt the rules state anything like this but I'd love to hear what the official thoughts would be when a pitcher basically throws a pitch towards the dugout and then the hitter takes a half-hearted practice swing as the catcher runs 10+ feet to retrieve the ball.
a scenario like this last night. If a pitcher threw the ball and the batter just swung the bat 1 second after the catcher caught it, would he be called for a strike
He is not there ti determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
I doubt the rules state anything like this but I'd love to hear what the official thoughts would be when a pitcher basically throws a pitch towards the dugout and then the hitter takes a half-hearted practice swing as the catcher runs 10+ feet to retrieve the ball.
The ump is an idiot for following the rules and calling the play correctly??
He is not there to determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
The ump is an idiot for following the rules and calling the play correctly? Huh. Learn something new every day.
It could be argued that it is within the ump's power to "determine intent" and there is precedent if you recall the famous Pine Tar Incident of 1983 when George Brett's home run was disqualified because his bat had pine tar extending past regulation limits.
Quote:
The Royals protested the game, and their protest was officially heard by American League President Lee MacPhail.
At the time, MLB Rule 1.10(c) stated: "The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, and the penalty for hitting "an illegally batted ball" was that the batter was to be declared out, under the explicit terms of the then-existing provisions of Rule 6.06.
However, MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest. In explaining his decision, MacPhail noted that the "spirit of the restriction" on pine tar on bats was based not on the fear of unfair advantage, but simple economics; any contact with pine tar would discolor the ball, render it unsuitable for play, and require that it be discarded and replaced—thus increasing the home team's cost of supplying balls for a given game. MacPhail ruled that Brett had not violated the spirit of the rules nor deliberately "altered [the bat] to improve the distance factor".
MacPhail's ruling followed precedent, established after a protest in 1975 of the September 7 game played between the Royals and the California Angels.[5] In that game, the umpire crew had declined to negate one of John Mayberry's home runs for excessive pine tar use. MacPhail, who also heard this protest, upheld the umpires' decision with the view that the intent of the rule was to prevent baseballs from being discolored in game play, and that any discoloration that may have occurred to a ball leaving the ballpark did not affect the game's competitive balance.
MacPhail thus restored Brett's home run and ordered the game resumed with two outs in the top of the ninth inning with the Royals leading 5–4.
He is not there to determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
The ump is an idiot for following the rules and calling the play correctly? Huh. Learn something new every day.
It could be argued that it is within the ump's power to "determine intent" and there is precedent if you recall the famous Pine Tar Incident of 1983 when George Brett's home run was disqualified because his bat had pine tar extending past regulation limits.
Quote:
The Royals protested the game, and their protest was officially heard by American League President Lee MacPhail.
At the time, MLB Rule 1.10(c) stated: "The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, and the penalty for hitting "an illegally batted ball" was that the batter was to be declared out, under the explicit terms of the then-existing provisions of Rule 6.06.
However, MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest. In explaining his decision, MacPhail noted that the "spirit of the restriction" on pine tar on bats was based not on the fear of unfair advantage, but simple economics; any contact with pine tar would discolor the ball, render it unsuitable for play, and require that it be discarded and replaced—thus increasing the home team's cost of supplying balls for a given game. MacPhail ruled that Brett had not violated the spirit of the rules nor deliberately "altered [the bat] to improve the distance factor".
MacPhail's ruling followed precedent, established after a protest in 1975 of the September 7 game played between the Royals and the California Angels.[5] In that game, the umpire crew had declined to negate one of John Mayberry's home runs for excessive pine tar use. MacPhail, who also heard this protest, upheld the umpires' decision with the view that the intent of the rule was to prevent baseballs from being discolored in game play, and that any discoloration that may have occurred to a ball leaving the ballpark did not affect the game's competitive balance.
MacPhail thus restored Brett's home run and ordered the game resumed with two outs in the top of the ninth inning with the Royals leading 5–4.
Your Pine Tar Game example shows the AL Comish determining intent and changing the ruling...NOT the ump. The Ump applies the rules of the game. I don't believe he has the power to ignore the rules based on his interpretation of "intent".
and the fact that Binghamton University (my alma mater) is involved in this, it makes my day.
From my perspective, the umpire was out of line and made a ridiculous call. I'm an old baseball player. When I was getting ready to bat or in the batter's box, I continually swung the bat. It calmed my nerves and from what I can tell by the video, the batter was simply swing the bat to loosen up knowing that it wasn't even a pitch. You can tell by the hitch and swing that he was simply loosening up and not striking at a pitch.
when the pitcher throws at the batter, and in trying to get out of the way, the batter essentially lets the bat come around, and the ump calls it a strike? Wouldn't that be a similar issue of intent being disregarded?
and the fact that Binghamton University (my alma mater) is involved in this, it makes my day.
From my perspective, the umpire was out of line and made a ridiculous call. I'm an old baseball player. When I was getting ready to bat or in the batter's box, I continually swung the bat. It calmed my nerves and from what I can tell by the video, the batter was simply swing the bat to loosen up knowing that it wasn't even a pitch. You can tell by the hitch and swing that he was simply loosening up and not striking at a pitch.
Exactly. That was the most ridiculous thing I've seen on a baseball field but at least the umpire had his "look at me" moment. Idiotic.
People are really blaming the ump here? "Look at me" moment? Holy shit. The fucking guy swung the bat after the pitcher threw the ball. I have an idea. How about the clown player leave his bat on his shoulder until after the catcher cates the ball? Your REALLY want umps deciding "intent" on a full swing now? Thats a very slippery slope. The bottom line is, the idiot swung the bat. The ump cannot make a judgement call when the guy swings the bat completely around.
If the umpire has a hard time deciding intent on THAT play Â
then he probably shouldn't be behind the plate. I know it's a stretch, but I'm fairly certain the batter wasn't trying to hit that pitch that rolled to the foul line 10 feet away from home plate.
But sure, I'll remember your post the next time an umpire makes a decision on intent when a batter swings and then gets hit by a pitch. Or the 20 times per game umpires make judgement calls on check swings from 70 feet away.
RE: If the umpire has a hard time deciding intent on THAT play Â
then he probably shouldn't be behind the plate. I know it's a stretch, but I'm fairly certain the batter wasn't trying to hit that pitch that rolled to the foul line 10 feet away from home plate.
But sure, I'll remember your post the next time an umpire makes a decision on intent when a batter swings and then gets hit by a pitch. Or the 20 times per game umpires make judgement calls on check swings from 70 feet away.
That was NOT a check swing. The freaking guy swung the bat. Completely around.
I'll also remember your post if Bryce Harper does that in a game 7 against the Mets. I can just imagine your thoughts when Harper swings fully around and the ump steps in and says "eh, it is my opinion that he was just kidding. That's ball 3 ladies and gentlemen!". I'm completely sure that you will have the umpires back when that happens.
The umpires are dreadful enough. Can we stop with the idea that they should now have judgement calls on obvious things like full swings?
First of all, your scenario is saying the Mets would be in the post season, which is obvious that would never happen.
Second, I don't want umpires making decisions on the batters intent to swing. I think we can agree on that. What happened in that clip almost never happens and I don't think it's a stretch to understand that the batter wasn't swinging at the pitch. It was clearly a practice swing which batters do every at bat (clearly when th pitcher still has the ball though). I said in my first post that the batter was an idiot too for swinging. But come on, the umpire can't call that. It's such an easy non call.
I wouldn't care less if your scenario actually happened. BECAUSE ITS NOT A FUCKING SWING AND MISS. If one of the Mets pitchers throws a laughable pitch into foul territory 10+ feet away from home plate, I'm comfortable with calling it a ball. Even if Harper himself runs over to the ball and tries to golf swing it off the ground.
Lastly, I've given this topic way too much of my time today lol.
I'm sure it wasn't the pitchers intent to throw the ball into the ground either. Does he get a pass? And that's my problem with Phis scenario. Where do we draw the line?
I'm sure it wasn't the pitchers intent to throw the ball into the ground either. Does he get a pass? And that's my problem with Phis scenario. Where do we draw the line?
Here. Right here. That's where we draw the line. Calling a strike there is ridiculously stupid. I've probably umpired several hundred games in the last 10 years in the high school level and I would absolutely never call a strike there.
Let's ask this then. If a lefty pitcher attempts a pickoff and throws wide to the home side of the plate and the batter takes a practice swing, is that a strike? Pitcher never stepped off the rubber. Catcher never got the ball. 1st base never got the ball. Is the umpire supposed to read the intent of the pitcher there? Or should that be a strike?
That pitch is so ludicrously awful that no batter could ever attempt to hit it. End of story. Umpire is an asshole.
Wow, strong BBI opinions on both sides of this issue! Â
I see both sides' point of view and am not sure what the answer should be. I thought maybe it turned on whether the ball became a dead ball, but looking at the rules (at least the MLB rules), I don't think it became a dead ball. And it was still rolling when the batter swung. That said, it appears that intent is a factor under the MLB definition of "strike":
"A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught."
I think we can all agree that this batter did not "swing at" this pitch. He was taking a practice swing for the next pitch.
So I guess I side with those who say the ump got it wrong.
RE: Wow, strong BBI opinions on both sides of this issue! Â
That said, it appears that intent is a factor under the MLB definition of "strike":
"A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught."
I think we can all agree that this batter did not "swing at" this pitch. He was taking a practice swing for the next pitch.
So I guess I side with those who say the ump got it wrong.
I don't see how "intent" is factored into MLB's definition.
This seems to hang on whether the pitcher's throw constitutes a "pitch." I think it was. It was a horrible pitch, and I've no doubt the pitcher didn't intend for it to be that horrible. But the pitcher's intent was just as irrelevant as the batter's intent.
So, tell me. What if there was a man on first. He sees what happens and bolts to second base. Is he safe at second? Of course he is because it's a live ball. If it's a live ball and the batter swings then it's a strike.
He is not there ti determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
I doubt the rules state anything like this but I'd love to hear what the official thoughts would be when a pitcher basically throws a pitch towards the dugout and then the hitter takes a half-hearted practice swing as the catcher runs 10+ feet to retrieve the ball.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen on BBI in a long time.
If he dropped the ball, it is still considered a pitched ball. If the ball slipped, it is still considered a pitched ball. If he slipped and held on to the ball, it is a balk, and called a ball.
Had the batter done nothing until the catcher retrieved the ball and threw it back to the pitcher, it would have been called a ball. But, he didn't. He swung, which the ball was bouncing. It may seem crazy, but that's a strike.
I'm sure it wasn't the pitchers intent to throw the ball into the ground either. Does he get a pass? And that's my problem with Phis scenario. Where do we draw the line?
Here. Right here. That's where we draw the line. Calling a strike there is ridiculously stupid. I've probably umpired several hundred games in the last 10 years in the high school level and I would absolutely never call a strike there.
Let's ask this then. If a lefty pitcher attempts a pickoff and throws wide to the home side of the plate and the batter takes a practice swing, is that a strike? Pitcher never stepped off the rubber. Catcher never got the ball. 1st base never got the ball. Is the umpire supposed to read the intent of the pitcher there? Or should that be a strike?
That pitch is so ludicrously awful that no batter could ever attempt to hit it. End of story. Umpire is an asshole.
That also has nothing to do with intent. It has to do with where the pticher's body (specifically his right leg/foot and his arm) are moving. If his foot crosses the rubber, then it is an attempted pitch. If it is moving toward the plate, then it is an attempted pitch. If his leg or arm is moving toward 1B, then it is an attempted pickoff and an error. It is a live ball and the runner on 1B is free to advance. If goes in the dugout, then the runner is awarded the base and possibly 3B as well, depending on where he was at the time.
RE: Wow, strong BBI opinions on both sides of this issue! Â
I see both sides' point of view and am not sure what the answer should be. I thought maybe it turned on whether the ball became a dead ball, but looking at the rules (at least the MLB rules), I don't think it became a dead ball. And it was still rolling when the batter swung. That said, it appears that intent is a factor under the MLB definition of "strike":
"A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught."
I think we can all agree that this batter did not "swing at" this pitch. He was taking a practice swing for the next pitch.
So I guess I side with those who say the ump got it wrong.
There is no next pitch yet. As bad a throw as it was, it is still a live ball when the batter swings. The catcher hadn't retrieved it yet. If the batter was smart, he would have bolted for 1B and may have beat it out if he did so right away.
Literally dude... I've never seen someone be more wrong on this website. And that's saying a lot.
You are such a special treat on this board. If you even bothered to read the thread, I'm clearly not alone on this point of view. Even shared by a poster that has umpired several hundred games. But thanks for singling me out for the sole purpose of being a dick.
You're doing a great job of filling the void left by radar. Keep up the great work.
Literally dude... I've never seen someone be more wrong on this website. And that's saying a lot.
You are such a special treat on this board. If you even bothered to read the thread, I'm clearly not alone on this point of view. Even shared by a poster that has umpired several hundred games. But thanks for singling me out for the sole purpose of being a dick.
You're doing a great job of filling the void left by radar. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, man! Just make some smarter posts and things will be OK :-)
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
I doubt the rules state anything like this but I'd love to hear what the official thoughts would be when a pitcher basically throws a pitch towards the dugout and then the hitter takes a half-hearted practice swing as the catcher runs 10+ feet to retrieve the ball.
Quote:
He is not there ti determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
I doubt the rules state anything like this but I'd love to hear what the official thoughts would be when a pitcher basically throws a pitch towards the dugout and then the hitter takes a half-hearted practice swing as the catcher runs 10+ feet to retrieve the ball.
The ump is an idiot for following the rules and calling the play correctly??
Huh. Learn something new every day.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
The ump is an idiot for following the rules and calling the play correctly? Huh. Learn something new every day.
It could be argued that it is within the ump's power to "determine intent" and there is precedent if you recall the famous Pine Tar Incident of 1983 when George Brett's home run was disqualified because his bat had pine tar extending past regulation limits.
At the time, MLB Rule 1.10(c) stated: "The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, and the penalty for hitting "an illegally batted ball" was that the batter was to be declared out, under the explicit terms of the then-existing provisions of Rule 6.06.
However, MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest. In explaining his decision, MacPhail noted that the "spirit of the restriction" on pine tar on bats was based not on the fear of unfair advantage, but simple economics; any contact with pine tar would discolor the ball, render it unsuitable for play, and require that it be discarded and replaced—thus increasing the home team's cost of supplying balls for a given game. MacPhail ruled that Brett had not violated the spirit of the rules nor deliberately "altered [the bat] to improve the distance factor".
MacPhail's ruling followed precedent, established after a protest in 1975 of the September 7 game played between the Royals and the California Angels.[5] In that game, the umpire crew had declined to negate one of John Mayberry's home runs for excessive pine tar use. MacPhail, who also heard this protest, upheld the umpires' decision with the view that the intent of the rule was to prevent baseballs from being discolored in game play, and that any discoloration that may have occurred to a ball leaving the ballpark did not affect the game's competitive balance.
MacPhail thus restored Brett's home run and ordered the game resumed with two outs in the top of the ninth inning with the Royals leading 5–4.
Quote:
He is not there to determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
The ump is an idiot for following the rules and calling the play correctly? Huh. Learn something new every day.
It could be argued that it is within the ump's power to "determine intent" and there is precedent if you recall the famous Pine Tar Incident of 1983 when George Brett's home run was disqualified because his bat had pine tar extending past regulation limits.
Quote:
The Royals protested the game, and their protest was officially heard by American League President Lee MacPhail.
At the time, MLB Rule 1.10(c) stated: "The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, and the penalty for hitting "an illegally batted ball" was that the batter was to be declared out, under the explicit terms of the then-existing provisions of Rule 6.06.
However, MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest. In explaining his decision, MacPhail noted that the "spirit of the restriction" on pine tar on bats was based not on the fear of unfair advantage, but simple economics; any contact with pine tar would discolor the ball, render it unsuitable for play, and require that it be discarded and replaced—thus increasing the home team's cost of supplying balls for a given game. MacPhail ruled that Brett had not violated the spirit of the rules nor deliberately "altered [the bat] to improve the distance factor".
MacPhail's ruling followed precedent, established after a protest in 1975 of the September 7 game played between the Royals and the California Angels.[5] In that game, the umpire crew had declined to negate one of John Mayberry's home runs for excessive pine tar use. MacPhail, who also heard this protest, upheld the umpires' decision with the view that the intent of the rule was to prevent baseballs from being discolored in game play, and that any discoloration that may have occurred to a ball leaving the ballpark did not affect the game's competitive balance.
MacPhail thus restored Brett's home run and ordered the game resumed with two outs in the top of the ninth inning with the Royals leading 5–4.
Your Pine Tar Game example shows the AL Comish determining intent and changing the ruling...NOT the ump. The Ump applies the rules of the game. I don't believe he has the power to ignore the rules based on his interpretation of "intent".
From my perspective, the umpire was out of line and made a ridiculous call. I'm an old baseball player. When I was getting ready to bat or in the batter's box, I continually swung the bat. It calmed my nerves and from what I can tell by the video, the batter was simply swing the bat to loosen up knowing that it wasn't even a pitch. You can tell by the hitch and swing that he was simply loosening up and not striking at a pitch.
From my perspective, the umpire was out of line and made a ridiculous call. I'm an old baseball player. When I was getting ready to bat or in the batter's box, I continually swung the bat. It calmed my nerves and from what I can tell by the video, the batter was simply swing the bat to loosen up knowing that it wasn't even a pitch. You can tell by the hitch and swing that he was simply loosening up and not striking at a pitch.
Exactly. That was the most ridiculous thing I've seen on a baseball field but at least the umpire had his "look at me" moment. Idiotic.
But sure, I'll remember your post the next time an umpire makes a decision on intent when a batter swings and then gets hit by a pitch. Or the 20 times per game umpires make judgement calls on check swings from 70 feet away.
But sure, I'll remember your post the next time an umpire makes a decision on intent when a batter swings and then gets hit by a pitch. Or the 20 times per game umpires make judgement calls on check swings from 70 feet away.
That was NOT a check swing. The freaking guy swung the bat. Completely around.
I'll also remember your post if Bryce Harper does that in a game 7 against the Mets. I can just imagine your thoughts when Harper swings fully around and the ump steps in and says "eh, it is my opinion that he was just kidding. That's ball 3 ladies and gentlemen!". I'm completely sure that you will have the umpires back when that happens.
The umpires are dreadful enough. Can we stop with the idea that they should now have judgement calls on obvious things like full swings?
Second, I don't want umpires making decisions on the batters intent to swing. I think we can agree on that. What happened in that clip almost never happens and I don't think it's a stretch to understand that the batter wasn't swinging at the pitch. It was clearly a practice swing which batters do every at bat (clearly when th pitcher still has the ball though). I said in my first post that the batter was an idiot too for swinging. But come on, the umpire can't call that. It's such an easy non call.
I wouldn't care less if your scenario actually happened. BECAUSE ITS NOT A FUCKING SWING AND MISS. If one of the Mets pitchers throws a laughable pitch into foul territory 10+ feet away from home plate, I'm comfortable with calling it a ball. Even if Harper himself runs over to the ball and tries to golf swing it off the ground.
Lastly, I've given this topic way too much of my time today lol.
The umpire called it exactly right.
Here. Right here. That's where we draw the line. Calling a strike there is ridiculously stupid. I've probably umpired several hundred games in the last 10 years in the high school level and I would absolutely never call a strike there.
Let's ask this then. If a lefty pitcher attempts a pickoff and throws wide to the home side of the plate and the batter takes a practice swing, is that a strike? Pitcher never stepped off the rubber. Catcher never got the ball. 1st base never got the ball. Is the umpire supposed to read the intent of the pitcher there? Or should that be a strike?
That pitch is so ludicrously awful that no batter could ever attempt to hit it. End of story. Umpire is an asshole.
"A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught."
I think we can all agree that this batter did not "swing at" this pitch. He was taking a practice swing for the next pitch.
So I guess I side with those who say the ump got it wrong.
"A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught."
I think we can all agree that this batter did not "swing at" this pitch. He was taking a practice swing for the next pitch.
So I guess I side with those who say the ump got it wrong.
I don't see how "intent" is factored into MLB's definition.
This seems to hang on whether the pitcher's throw constitutes a "pitch." I think it was. It was a horrible pitch, and I've no doubt the pitcher didn't intend for it to be that horrible. But the pitcher's intent was just as irrelevant as the batter's intent.
Quote:
He is not there ti determine intent. A pitch was thrown and the batter swung prior to the C collecting the ball.
Lol, come on. The ball was basically in foul territory and the catcher wasn't even behind the plate. The ump is an idiot.
I doubt the rules state anything like this but I'd love to hear what the official thoughts would be when a pitcher basically throws a pitch towards the dugout and then the hitter takes a half-hearted practice swing as the catcher runs 10+ feet to retrieve the ball.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen on BBI in a long time.
He struck out. This isn't even worth discussing.
Had the batter done nothing until the catcher retrieved the ball and threw it back to the pitcher, it would have been called a ball. But, he didn't. He swung, which the ball was bouncing. It may seem crazy, but that's a strike.
Quote:
I'm sure it wasn't the pitchers intent to throw the ball into the ground either. Does he get a pass? And that's my problem with Phis scenario. Where do we draw the line?
Here. Right here. That's where we draw the line. Calling a strike there is ridiculously stupid. I've probably umpired several hundred games in the last 10 years in the high school level and I would absolutely never call a strike there.
Let's ask this then. If a lefty pitcher attempts a pickoff and throws wide to the home side of the plate and the batter takes a practice swing, is that a strike? Pitcher never stepped off the rubber. Catcher never got the ball. 1st base never got the ball. Is the umpire supposed to read the intent of the pitcher there? Or should that be a strike?
That pitch is so ludicrously awful that no batter could ever attempt to hit it. End of story. Umpire is an asshole.
"A strike in baseball results when a batter swings at and misses a pitch, does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone or hits a foul ball that is not caught."
I think we can all agree that this batter did not "swing at" this pitch. He was taking a practice swing for the next pitch.
So I guess I side with those who say the ump got it wrong.
Thanks super-douche. How about fuck off?
You are such a special treat on this board. If you even bothered to read the thread, I'm clearly not alone on this point of view. Even shared by a poster that has umpired several hundred games. But thanks for singling me out for the sole purpose of being a dick.
You're doing a great job of filling the void left by radar. Keep up the great work.
Quote:
Literally dude... I've never seen someone be more wrong on this website. And that's saying a lot.
You are such a special treat on this board. If you even bothered to read the thread, I'm clearly not alone on this point of view. Even shared by a poster that has umpired several hundred games. But thanks for singling me out for the sole purpose of being a dick.
You're doing a great job of filling the void left by radar. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, man! Just make some smarter posts and things will be OK :-)