OT Sorry BlazingGiants and UncleCliffy'sDaddy

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Giants season shouldn't have ended that way, but let's be honest, doubt Flores is putting the bat on the ball against the beast that is Max, still sucks though!
 
I hope none of these umps get to perform in the playoffs, and my team is out.

Atrocious BOTH ways.

That being said, I’ve seen the Giants win three World Series. The Championship is supposed to be the pinnacle of any sports season, but it’s one brief moment. I really enjoyed watching the Giants dominate baseball for an entire season (and with a bunch of mostly cast-offs, no less).

Fun season, you hate to see it go down on a bullshit call (even though there’s no guarantee Flores does anything with the next pitch).

As much as I hate the Bums, maybe they too will get to feel what it’s like to win a real Championship.
 
As a Dodgers Fan I am happy they won the game. As a baseball fan, that was a bad way to end a great series. I did read a article that said in the MBL rule book there is not actually a definition of what a check swing is. I bet there are some rule changes before next season.
 
twobullz said:
As a Dodgers Fan I am happy they won the game. As a baseball fan, that was a bad way to end a great series. I did read a article that said in the MBL rule book there is not actually a definition of what a check swing is. I bet there are some rule changes before next season.
Click to expand...

He clearly did not go around nearly as bad as Seager went earlier in the series when it was VERY clear he did and it was called a ball.
 
twobullz said:
As a Dodgers Fan I am happy they won the game. As a baseball fan, that was a bad way to end a great series. I did read a article that said in the MBL rule book there is not actually a definition of what a check swing is. I bet there are some rule changes before next season.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 'check swing' ... either the batter swung at the ball or he didn't and that's determined by the umpire. We've been lulled into the check swing thanks to TV and guys talking about if the bat cleared the plate or not.
 
Lanny said:
The rule is if you break your wrists it's a swing, but he never broke his wrists.
Click to expand...

There actually is no rule about what constitutes a swing except "if a batter attempts to strike at the ball." It's 100% the umpire's discretion with not even an attempt at a metric. Commentators have used "breaking wrists" or "breaking the plane" but none of that is actually in the rule book.

IMO, it was a terrible call but probably didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game.
 
Minstrel said:
There actually is no rule about what constitutes a swing except "if a batter attempts to strike at the ball." It's 100% the umpire's discretion with not even an attempt at a metric. Commentators have used "breaking wrists" or "breaking the plane" but none of that is actually in the rule book.

IMO, it was a terrible call but probably didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game.
Click to expand...
The old rule back when I used to watch baseball maybe fifty years or so ago was what I said about the breaking of the wrists and the slang for it was check swing.
 
Lanny said:
The old rule back when I used to watch baseball maybe fifty years or so ago was what I said about the breaking of the wrists and the slang for it was check swing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't doubt that it was commonly said. I was just noting that it was never actually a rule and there almost is no rule--which is a bit of a problem with the rule book IMO. You can't make a completely judgment-free rule about check swings, but you can probably do more than "it counts as a swing if the batter attempts to strike at the ball" which is really no better than "it counts as a swing if the batter attempts to swing."
 
Minstrel said:
Yeah, I don't doubt that it was commonly said. I was just noting that it was never actually a rule and there almost is no rule--which is a bit of a problem with the rule book IMO. You can't make a completely judgment-free rule about check swings, but you can probably do more than "it counts as a swing if the batter attempts to strike at the ball" which is really no better than "it counts as a swing if the batter attempts to swing."
Click to expand...
No, it was a rule in the early 60s when I was first aware of rules and old enough to really enjoy the game. They did look at another factor and that was did he more than half way complete his swing. The incomplete swing was then commonly referred to as a check swing.
 
Lanny said:
No, it was a rule in the early 60s when I was first aware of rules and old enough to really enjoy the game.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never in the rule book. Just an outside standard by fans and commentators.
 
Minstrel said:
Nope. Never in the rule book. Just an outside standard by fans and commentators.
Click to expand...
Every time I saw it while watching baseball it was referred to but technically you are right.
From Wikipedia:
"The Major League Baseball rulebook does not contain an official definition for a checked swing, but defines a swing as "an attempt to strike at the ball". It is the decision of the umpire as to whether an attempt was made or not. Generally, factors such as whether the bat passes the front of the plate or the batter pulls their 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checked_swing
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top