Although it is the source of frequent call-by-call debates, and can dramatically impact a game, the “check swing” has never been subject to any kind of technical review beyond asking one of the base umps if he saw something different.
The main reason, I suspect, is that the act of a swing is by its very nature a fuzzy thing. There isn’t a precise definition because swings can look so different. Did a batter actually swing at that pitch? Well, you kinda just have to watch to see. Did he go just a little too far in attempting to make contact? If he crossed over the imaginary boundary between “I’m thinking about hitting this pitch” to “OK, yeah, I’m gonna try to hit this pitch,” there’s your swing. It’s messy. Always has been.
Sure, there are some very general guideposts for whether a dude might’ve swung – did the bat cross the parallel with the front of the plate? Did the guy break his wrists? – but they aren’t actually rules. They aren’t as hard-and-fast and measurable as a strike zone or a catch or a tag or a home run or a foul bal or a foot tapping a base. So how exactly could you have a technical replay review?
Well, it actually looks like Major League Baseball is experimenting with a way to do it. They showed it off last night in the Arizona Fall League, a frequent testing ground for potential future rules:
Watching those videos, I wonder if your reaction is the same as mine: are you kidding me with that definition of a swing?!?!?!?
You can see pretty clearly what they’re going by: a 45-degree angle to home plate. That is such an exceedingly generous definition for the batter that I thought there had to be some other explanation. But nope, as confirmed by Josh Norris after the game:
‘Hereโs how Scottsdale manager Dennis Pelfrey explained the new system, which went into effect that day.
โThey show a dotted line on the screen, and if the bat touches that dotted line, then itโs a swing,โ Pelfrey said. โAnd thatโs a 45-degree angle from the knob of the bat through the barrel, with home plate being the zero line.โ
The video board animation goes like this: First, it shows the movement of the bat from the side. Next, the image shifts to an overhead view with the bat frozen in its final position. Then, a dotted line is drawn through the barrel and knob of the bat. If the batโs barrel is judged to have traveled more than 45 degrees past its final stopping point, then it is judged a swing. If it moves less than 45 degrees, then itโs not a swing. It is not clear which way the call would go if the barrel lands at exactly 45 degrees.’
Think back on the many checked (and not checked) swings you’ve seen in your lifetime. The ones that travelled past 45 degrees wouldn’t even really be a question – if you visualize it, you can see that those ones would OBVIOUSLY be called swings. And loads of swings that go welllllll shy of 45 degrees would obviously be swings, too. Heck, when a batter starts to break his wrists and the bat goes even 10 degrees past parallel with the front edge of the plate, we would hardly complain if it were called a swing!
So, again, the technology is one thing – use the tools available to you – but the definition here is truly wild. (That’s not even to mention the part where there are no up-down considerations, only a measure of a single plane of motion; maybe it wouldn’t make a difference, but sometimes a swing is even swingier when you see the directionality toward the ball.)
Of course, maybe the generous definition for the batter is an even bigger test than the technology? Maybe MLB wants to try to find smaller ways to give hitters an edge in an era where pitchers have generally disproportionately benefited from advancements in technology and training?
I would at least say I am intrigued, even if the definition being used strikes me as a little out there. And I don’t fundamentally have an issue with trying to make check swing calls reviewable, as long as there’s a timely and effective way to do it.
I should underscore here that just because MLB is testing this system in the AFL, that doesn’t mean it’s coming to the big leagues any time soon. We saw automated balls and strikes being tested in the AFL a long, long time ago, and we still don’t have it in MLB.
One other way you COULD approach this is by subjecting swings to straight up video replay review, and have an official make a decision based on the side view. So many swing/non-swing calls are pretty darn clear when you have tape you can slow down and watch from the side. But, I recognize there would still be a judgement call involved, and maybe we just don’t want to open up that mess. They probably wouldn’t be very time-efficient, either.