"We need to get a system that can get that right." Broadcaster Joe Davis reacts to the swing call that ended Game 2 of the World Series https://t.co/9IXmVGNPlC
— Talkin' Baseball (@TalkinBaseball_) October 25, 2026
The MLB rule book does not define a "swing" or "checked swing." It is 100% the umpire's judgment. But just about every accepted understanding makes that swing. The barrel of his bat was through the hitting zone -- past parallel to the front of the plate. Had the ball struck the bat it would have gone into fair territory. That's no different than a bunt attempt that isn't pulled back in time.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) October 25, 2026
Posts
64 comments:
He went.
John Smoltz knows better.
My observation from reading comments online about sports calls like this is how it's just like how people justify political opinions too. It depends more than anything on which team you support. People reach for exactly what they argue against when the issue is reversed. Sometimes it's just completely upside down logic, but many minds cannot be changed with facts, even ones you can see with your own eyes.
LOL.
I thought it was past the plate. That swing looked pretty clearly past the plate. The bat almost pointed to first base.
The announcer should probably make a public apology on that.
Camera angles from the first base line are going to make things look wrong.
It's true that the barrel of the bat did go over the plate and slightly beyond. But I would have ruled it a checked swing as it was obvious that the batter was holding back which is the meaning of "checked."
With all the rules in baseball, you would think they would have one for this. It's simple to make one like it can't pass the front of the plate, and an overhead shot would prove it perfectly.
The batter could have intended to check his swing, but his actions were different.
If the bat could hit a ball in the strike zone, it should be considered a swing. Guessing the batter's intention is asking for mindreading.
"The barrel of his bat was through the hitting zone"
nuff said
Not mentioned: Batters should get better at checking their swing. No matter what the definition is, batters will always try to push their performance right up to the line, and being human, that means sometimes they will go past it, unintentionally.
They should simplify the rule to make it 100% objective, like the 'bat in front of the plate' rule. But let's face it: Subjective umpire decisions on borderline issues is what makes it baseball. I think the game is a better sport for it.
"Guessing the batter's intention is asking for mindreading."
Keep hanging chad out of baseball
Because they don't have a simple rule, the arguments are really about what the rule should be. I realized that this is a very new sport, and this might have never come up before, so maybe it's just too soon.
looks like a swing to me.
That view from above is also from behind making it impossible to conclusively determine the position in relationship to the plate.
"Subjective umpire decisions on borderline issues is what makes it baseball. I think the game is a better sport for it."
I don't see how. It just makes people feel that it's unfair or corrupt, and sometimes they are right.
"Batters should get better at checking their swing"
I don't know what that means. He meant to swing. Then, too late, he changed his mind.
A few observations:
While not relevant to this call, as someone who has watched a lot of Rays games over the years, I can safely say Yandy Diaz checks his swing more than nearly anyone I've ever seen.
I remember when there was no appeal allowed to the base umpires. It was solely up to the plate umpire's judgment, who is not in a good position to see. The wide divergence in calls of this nature (and umpires' justifiable complaints that this was easily the hardest call they had to make) led to the rule of the catcher being allowed to ask the plate umpire to check with the base umpire.
Somewhat interestingly, but also not relevant to this call, Yandy Diaz is known as having played this entire season without once asking for an appeal on a called strike call. Per AI, he chooses never to challenge or appeal a regular ball-strike call because of a strict personal philosophy rooted in a respect for human umpires and a desire to maintain his mental focus.
I thought it was the correct call last night.
'...I don't see how. It just makes people feel that it's unfair or corrupt, and sometimes they are right. ...'
How many beers have been sold in bars to facilitate guys arguing over questionable umpire calls, over the years? Unfair, maybe; corrupt - well, I don' t see much evidence of there being a corruption problem with baseball umpires. Maybe some isolated cases.
Umpires are human too, and there have been some bad umpires through the years. But, that's baseball. I think it's one of our most relatable sports. Baseball players look like regular guys, not giant monsters like in football, or 7 ft quasi-freaks like basketball. It's slower pace makes it more relatable, more representational of life in a lot of ways. And a bad call by an umpire on something you thought you saw, is relatable to a boss being unfair, or some authority in your life showing imperfect judgment.
No, I say keep it the way it is, but maybe make the rule more objective to make it easier for the batter to abide.
As a forever Red Sox fan (sympathy accepted) I have no dog in this fight. The batter swung. The first base ump was absolutely correct in calling the batter out. I have seen a lot of lesser swings called strikes while watching various pro and college games.
The umps know if the bat crosses the plane of the front of the plate it's a swing. The bat passed the plane of the front of the plate - it was a strike.
"Camera angles from the first base line are going to make things look wrong." Yep. Also the plate umpire is in a worse position to judge.
So we have a first ruling on a poorly defined call by someone in a lousy position with the opposing team able to ask for a counter ruling from someone else in a poor position.
I'd be for eliminating umpires and referees completely if the system could be automated to get it right more often. Being sentimental about errors is silly.
What did Bob Uecker think from up in the nosebleeds ?
I'll go with that.
I'm still coming to grips with the rule change that ended the Neighborhood Play, and caused the confusion at the end of Game One.
Fan-held sign last night: "We're on a mission from Bob."
I miss the good old days when you broke your wrists or you didn't break your wrists but that was little league.
He went!
If they called it ball four, Ashby would have struck out the next guy.
In my non-expert opinion, he "went around" enough to call it a strike.
I was fishing off Malibu Friday (Caught my first white seabass AND yellowtail). Some guy starts going off on another guy who in discussion with some dude mentions that the French riots are about Islam. Seems he was the only guy that had ever traveled out side the country or been in the military or whatever and we were all racist Americans. Including me because I was laughing at him. Also, government actions during COVID were righteous because HE was a medical professional. The captain came down into the galley and told him to shut the fuck up, and wouldn’t let him fish anymore. Those boats are a great look into the really great and productive people California is blessed with. He wasn’t one of them.
As an umpire, I’ve always been a little more forgiving on checked swings.
That was a swing.
Not a swing.
Unless it was a Yankee, Red Sox, or Dodger batter, then it’s a swing.
@ donald - 10:13AM
That's a fascinating comment. Left me wanting to hear more.
In today's game, swing.
In the 50's there was an umpire, Nestor Chylak IIRC, who would not call it a swing unless the batter completely swung. In a way it makes sense.
"I'm still coming to grips with the rule change that ended the Neighborhood Play, and caused the confusion at the end of Game One."
No specific rule change but when MLB went to replay review players had to touch second, no close is good enough. Of course the unwritten "Neighborhood Play" wasn't really necessary because no one goes hard into second to break up double plays anymore.
"The barrel of his bat was through the hitting zone"
It really wasn't. That overhead shot distorts what happened because he pulled his bat upward, so it appears as if the bat angle is toward the first base line, but it's not. The video from the side view shows that the bat never crossed the front of the plate. That would be called no swing 95% of the time.
Shoeless Joe said...
Not a swing.
Unless it was a Yankee, Red Sox, or Dodger batter, then it’s a swing.
perfect. 10/10
I'm no sports fan, but I think that sports is a contest of skill and chance. And one of the things that is partly determined by chance is the umpire's, or referee's call. After all, if it weren't a game of chance, then why would people bet so heavily on it? But these days, everybody expects a 100% correct solution to every situation. That's why so many people are turning to AI to make decisions. They believe that AI will give them a correct solution all the time; because...well ...you know...it's ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY! (Which is something that I don't believe.)
"one of the things that is partly determined by chance is the umpire's, or referee's call."
I get that argument, but at least some use of technology is helpful. The automated line calling in tennis has completely eliminated all the arguing, which while sometimes entertaining ("Are you kidding me?!") is on the whole tiresome. In baseball, umpires got to be arrogant and power-mad. The ABS and challenge systems knocks them down a rung, and don't delay the game much (unlike the NFL system). But there will always be plays that are not reviewable from the nature of the game.
And I for one can't forget that Tigers pitcher who had an otherwise forgettable career, but whose perfect game was negated by a completely boneheaded call by Jim Joyce on what should have been the final out. At least they got a book and a speaking tour out of it.
I officiate high school baseball Bob. My strike zone is pretty much batters box to batters box, which is what everybody expects. I think that’s tough enough, so I’m gonna make sure. Too many guys will calla strike with any kind of motion. I hate that.
Oh the boat! It was weird, but that captain, who was completely no nonsense wasn’t having it. Outside of him, all those guys were fantastic. They’re throwing casting irons all over the place with 9’ up to 11’ rods and conventional reels and nobody ever screws up. It’s incredible to me. I have to do it with my Stella (Cause hell yeah I got a Stella). I did buy a really sweet combo this time, the plan was to leave it here, but I guess I’ll take it home and practice at the beach. I’m going to start doing long range trips in the gulf, I gotta get better.
Looked like a swing to me, but the standard used to be whether the batter broke his wrists. So you could check your swing and turn 180+ degrees and it would not be a swing. It looked to me like he broke his wrists, but I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
"Had the ball struck the bat it would have gone into fair territory."
To be fair, that could happen without ever taking the bat off your shoulder.
"And one of the things that is partly determined by chance is the umpire's, or referee's call. "
I really don't get this argument. Why not, on every 4th play, they decide on the outcome by rolling dice? Why not?
And one more thing. The bat broke the plane of the foul line. I had long understood that appeals to the 1st or 3rd base umpire was because those umpires were near the foul line, and if the swing went past their view then the call was a swing, unless the batter didn’t break the wrists. Anyway, the game has gone to crap ever since the DH. Get off my lawn.
For me, replays do not necessarily enhance the "viewing experience". If they can do them like they do with ball and strike calls where it takes about 10-15 seconds, I'm okay with them. Where I'm opposed is when you can grill a burger while the people "upstairs" are reviewing 27 camera angles to try to come to a conclusion. My suggestion: If you can't see clear video evidence that the call was in error in less than one minute, the call on the field stands.
"My suggestion: If you can't see clear video evidence that the call was in error in less than one minute, the call on the field stands."
Agreed. We watch AU and NZ rugby games. They've got it right in this regard. It can be done.
NFL: Did he or did he not catch the ball? It gets ridiculous.
What the umpire says, goes. That's part of the game. It's a public enactment of finality in an open-to-interpretation context.
"It can be done."
I think they took a good thing (overturning egregious calls) and ran with it until they've reached a point where measurement is not, with existing technology, even possible. Watching a college football game yesterday, they spent what seemed like an eternity trying to figure out (from a dozen different angles) if the receiver's shoe tip brushed a grass blade before going out of bounds.
And don't even get me started on reviewing "tush push" calls to see if the ball broke the plane.
“But just about every accepted understanding makes that swing. The barrel of his bat was through the hitting zone -- past parallel to the front of the plate.”
I always thought the criterion was whether the bat went past parallel to the baseline. That’s why checked swing appeals go to the base umpire; he’s got a good view of that line because he’s standing on it. He’s got a bad perspective of where things are in relation to the plate; that’s why he doesn’t call balls and strikes.
"And don't even get me started on reviewing "tush push" calls to see if the ball broke the plane."
I think they should outlaw the tush push for the simple reason that it's impossible to tell if he broke the plane.
For years the NFL had this stupid rule that if the defender pushes a jumping receiver out-of-bounds as he's catching the ball, it's a reception IF he would have come down in bounds. That, of course, opened up a can of worms; *would* he have come down in bounds (with two feet, mind you)?
They wisely changed the rule to allow the defender to push him out of bounds. Much easier to call.
Rules are arbitrary. Choose rules with an eye towards making them easier to officiate.
"Rules are arbitrary. Choose rules with an eye towards making them easier to officiate."
Sounds good to me.
I have watched, played, and umpired baseball since I was 5. I have come to the conclusion that when the umpire calls a checked swing a strike he is always right. When the umpire calls a checked swing a ball he is always right.
That's no pine tar incident. Y'all remember the pine tar incident? Holy shit, George Bret was mad.
Unless the players are screaming at you and running from the dugout, the umpire is right.
George Brett, not George Bret.
He was also really good friends with Rush Limbaugh.
Not sure if that's relevant. Probably.
I am possibly going down a George Brett rathole, but I have discovered that Rush installed a stereo system in his house and refused to accept payment. Later, Brett introduced Rush to his future wife, Kathryn Rogers.
Here is how you dispute an umpire's call.
Rub of the green.
Swing or dont swing. No half measures.
I have more respect for a man who swings for the fences and misses, than a half-man making a half-swing. And then whining about it.
Now I know what 'casting irons" and Stellas are...sort of.
Sounds like you had a blast.
"Rules are arbitrary. Choose rules with an eye towards making them easier to officiate."
In baseball, it is merely conventional for the home team to take the field first or for an umpire to stand behind the catcher rather than behind the pitcher (which might be safer). In the former instance it is convenient to have such a matter routinely settled one way or the other; in the latter instance it must have been found more convenient for the task at hand, e.g., it permits greater accuracy in calling pitches, and positions an official so that he is on top of plays at home plate and faces him so that his line of sight crosses those of the other umpires. More or less analogous advantages will recommend, say, the Gerber convention in bridge. But it can seem that really all the rules of a game, each act it consists of, is conventional. There is no necessity in permitting three strikes instead of two or four; in dealing thirteen cards rather than twelve or fifteen. — What would one have in mind here? That two or four are just as good? Meaning what? That it would not alter the essence of the game to have it so? But from what position is this supposed to be claimed? By someone who does or does not know what "the essence of the game" is? — e.g., that it contains passages which are duels between pitcher and batter, that "getting a hit", "drawing a walk", and "striking a batter out" must have certain ranges of difficulty. It is such matters that the "convention" of permitting three strikes is in service of. So a justification for saying that a different practice is "just as good" or "better" is that it is found just as good or better (by those who know and care about the activity). But is the whole game in service of anything? I think one may say: It is in service of the human capacity, or necessity, for play; because what can be played, and what play can be watched with that avidity, while not determinable a priori, is contingent upon the given capacities for human play, and for avidity. (It should not be surprising that what is necessary is contingent upon something. Necessaries are means.) It is perhaps not derivable from the measurements of a baseball diamond and of the average velocities of batted baseballs and of the average times human beings can run various short distances, that 90 feet is the best distance for setting up an essential recurrent crisis in the structure of a baseball game, e.g., at which the run and the throw to first take long enough to be followed lucidly, and are often completed within a familiar split second of one another; but seeing what happens at just these distances will sometimes strike one as a discovery of the a priori. But also of the utterly contingent. There is no necessity that human capacities should train to just these proportions; but just these proportions reveal the limits of those capacities. Without those limits, we would not have known the possibilities. - Stanley Cavell "The Claim of Reason"
"He [George Brett] was also really good friends with Rush Limbaugh."
He's lucky. Nowadays that would get him excluded from the Hall of Fame. (See Schilling, Curt.)
I always took a checked swing to be one that didn't break the line directly in front of the batter, i.e., roughly perpendicular to the line between the pitcher and catcher. By that criteria and the camera angles, that swing was really hard to judge. (I'm with those who think the widely shared semi-overhead view is misleading because of its angle.) Consequently, I'll go along with the call on the field.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.