Bruce's check swing and the evolution of baseball officiating

[slash129]

Watching the Yankees/Indians, Bruce appears to check swing on the Garcia pitch. Sanchez appeals. O'nora calls "no swing". Girardi barks. The TV review shows what should have been a swing call. Matt Vasgerian states "Let's hope we don't devolve to the point where a manager can challenge a check swing call."

 

It made me consider where myself or others stand on that statement. Should it be "devolving" or "evolving"?

[USAFChief]

Yes.

[Craig Arko]

No.

[ashbury]

Watching the Yankees/Indians, Bruce appears to check swing on the Garcia pitch. Sanchez appeals. O'nora calls "no swing". Girardi barks. The TV review shows what should have been a swing call. Matt Vasgerian states "Let's hope we don't devolve to the point where a manager can challenge a check swing call."

 

It made me consider where myself or others stand on that statement. Should it be "devolving" or "evolving"?

A fully automated strikezone seems to be in our future, and maybe the motion detection cameras can also be used to determine how far through the strike zone the head of the bat goes through. Until then, I don't think video review of checked swings is a good use of time.

[nicksaviking]

A fully automated strikezone seems to be in our future, and maybe the motion detection cameras can also be used to determine how far through the strike zone the head of the bat goes through. Until then, I don't think video review of checked swings is a good use of time.

Agreed, if we're not challenging balls/strikes I don't see why we'd challenge a check swing which is simply an extension of balls/strikes.

 

If (when) the strike zone gets automated that will too.

[jimmer]

 

Watching the Yankees/Indians, Bruce appears to check swing on the Garcia pitch. Sanchez appeals. O'nora calls "no swing". Girardi barks. The TV review shows what should have been a swing call. Matt Vasgerian states "Let's hope we don't devolve to the point where a manager can challenge a check swing call."

It made me consider where myself or others stand on that statement. Should it be "devolving" or "evolving"?

Matt Vasgerian is like Harold Reynolds.  He wants to go back to the 70s and have baseball talked about and played like it was then.  Also, he likely doesn't know what devolve means.  Someone likely had to look that word up for him.  That guy isn't exactly what one would call intelligent :-)

 

In any event, the rule about check swing is pretty open to interpretation from the umpire.  It's not like fair or foul, out or safe.

 

 

 

 

[USAFChief]

Matt Vasgerian is like Harold Reynolds.  He wants to go back to the 70s and have baseball talked about and played like it was then.  Also, he likely doesn't know what devolve means.  Someone likely had to look that word up for him.  That guy isn't exactly what one would call intelligent :-)

 

In any event, the rule about check swing is pretty open to interpretation from the umpire.  It's not like fair or foul, out or safe.

So then he doesn't want to go back to the seventies. He wants it left up to the umpire, like the rule book calls for.

[spinowner]

I don't know if there are any statistics regarding reviews of calls on check swings. I've seen statistics that the best umpires are about 90% correct on balls and strikes compared to automated systems and I would guess that corner base umpires are better at judging check swings than home plate umpires are at judging balls and strikes.