The Half-Swing

[jtur88]

I'm tired of the half swing.
Item: To "strike at" is not defined in the rule book, and never has been.
Item: Nearly every half-swing, the bat stops very close to the same point, which renders a very fine shade between "went around" and "held up".
Item: Umpires cannot call it, from any vantage point.
Apparently, the swing is called if the bat head crosses a plane that is parallel to the pitching rubber. That cannot be seen by any umpire's position.

I would propose that a swinging stike be called whenever the bat enters the strike zone, defined the head of the bat crossing the plane of the near edge of home plate. And that it be called by the home plate umpire without appeal.

So, every bat that enters the strike zone is called a swinging strike, no matter where the batter holds up after that.

Further, because batters know that can commit well into the strike zone, there are way, way too many half-swings. If the strike were called earlier in the swing, batters would be much less inclined to start a swing that they are disinclined to commit to, and would significantly cut down on the number of half swings. Even more important, it would cut down on the number of camera shots of base umps signalling, which the networks think is an indispensible part of the media event. In fact, that would even free up a camera, to rack up on a potentially more interesting shot.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a modern-day Eddie Stanky, going up there and chopping every ball to the right side, without EVER being called on a swinging strike, because the bat would never go far enough to get the call.

[TestSubjekt]

I always thought it was the first or third base line, not the pitching rubber.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by TestSubjekt

I always thought it was the first or third base line, not the pitching rubber.

It (like the balk) is an unwritten rule, and it is whatever the umpires have agreed to call it. And no announcer ever states just what the criteria are, but some have said "go half-way". The line parallel to the rubber would also be the same line that is parallel to the diagonal from first to third, and the line defining the front edge of the plate. Judging by the camera replays, that appears to be the line they are using as a reference point. If those of us a board like this don't know, who the hell does? Baseball rules are becoming way too much arcane mumbo-jumbo. Why don't the umpires work on something more remunerative, like turning lead into gold?

For a right-handed batter, do you think the line is the first base line or the third base line?

[jtur88]

Double post)

[nanwynn]

If memory serves me correctly, back in the Dark Ages when I was a kid, it was the batter's wrists that determined "swing" from "held up."

If the batter's wrists "rolled" he was considered to have swung the bat. If his hip action or body action moved the plane of the bat beyond mental parallel lines but his wrists did not roll [or "break" if you prefer], he was said to have checked his swing.

That made perfect sense to me then as it does now. It tosses out gepmetry in favor of batter kinetics and swing mechanics.

[jtur88]

You're right, nan, that's the way it used to be. I don't recall when it change. I think they started using the base umps for appeals sometime maybe the early 80's, but that's a poorly-founded guess.

Part of my proposal is aimed at trying to end the increasingly irritating habit of MLB hitters taking all these half swings. I watched a lot of college games last year, and I saw half-swings probably less than once per game. MLB hitters ought to be forced to either swing or not, and be denied that free pass if they don't go half way.

[Triad]

It seems like when I watched games back in the '70s, there weren't swing appeals to the base umps, or either they were very, very rare. I'm thinking it started to become common in the mid or late '80s?

[jtur88]

The rule is 9.02(c), and it was specifically codified into the official rule, at some fairly recent date, but I cannot find a google keyword combination that yields the date in which the rule was added. I'd guess it was in the 80's.

Sadly, the official rule book does not annotate itself to show the year that present rules became what they are. That would be a worthy task for an army of historians with a stack of annual editions of the rule books.