Started By
Message
re: Just eliminate the check swing please
Posted on 4/30/25 at 10:09 am to Rohan Gravy
Posted on 4/30/25 at 10:09 am to Rohan Gravy
The true solution is to automate it. The errors and variations in calls are the human factor. Check swings can be computerized along with perfectly accurate ball and strike calls.
0
Posted on 4/30/25 at 10:44 am to Rohan Gravy
quote:
There should be no do overs in legitimate sports
So... in your world a Pump Fake in basketball is now a turnover?
Play Action in football is an Illegal Procedure penalty?
Practice Swing in golf is a two stroke penalty?
Posted on 4/30/25 at 1:40 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
eliminate the check swing
this still? get over it.
its been two seasons
Posted on 4/30/25 at 2:22 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
A balk should be eliminated if a check swing is legal
I didn’t mean to do it, no harm no foul!
A balk isn't a rule to protect the hitter, it is to protect the base runner. So comparing it to a check swing isn't really apples to apples.
If a pitcher stops mid wind up claiming "oops" base runners will be left out to dry.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 2:23 pm to Rohan Gravy
This is like the old joke about making the base paths shorter to eliminate close plays
Posted on 4/30/25 at 3:00 pm to CrazyTigerFan
quote:
A pump fake pass, play action, or a run pass option in football.
A flea flicker. A HB or WR pass. Faking a shot or pass in basketball. Taking a lead in baseball.
Apples and oranges
The batter gets a ball or a strike
A real example comparable to yours above would be a batter faking to swing and then bunting the ball
All of your examples are a continuation of a play in progress
None of them are do overs
Posted on 4/30/25 at 3:02 pm to UBamaJelly
quote:
A balk isn't a rule to protect the hitter, it is to protect the base runner. So comparing it to a check swing isn't really apples to apples.
If a pitcher stops mid wind up claiming "oops" base runners will be left out to dry.
Then the ump could simply send them back to their base and they are not out
Posted on 4/30/25 at 3:05 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
This is like the old joke about making the base paths shorter to eliminate close plays
Not really
Posted on 4/30/25 at 3:14 pm to BenHOGan1
quote:
So... in your world a Pump Fake in basketball is now a turnover? Play Action in football is an Illegal Procedure penalty? Practice Swing in golf is a two stroke penalty?
Again
This is apples and oranges
All of your examples do not result in a call and shouldn’t
A check swing results in a ball or a strike
The count doesn’t stay the same
Big difference
Posted on 4/30/25 at 3:24 pm to Rohan Gravy
You do realize the “checked swing” is left up to the umpire’s discretion right?
Posted on 4/30/25 at 4:19 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
A real example comparable to yours above would be a batter faking to swing and then bunting the ball
The other way around... a player squaring to bunt and then taking a huge hack at the last second is not only legal, but it's even got its own name... The "Butcher Boy." It's a great -and legal - way for a batter to draw in the corners and then try to dump a ball into the outfield.
The whole point is that the OP has a flawed and ridiculous problem with the current check-swing rule. What's wrong with the umpires (plate and corners) being able to discern whether the batter's actions constituted a swing as defined by the rules? Sure they get some wrong, but that's the way it goes.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News