Good topic to write about. I agree, it's a messy situation that technology might resolve, though as has already been said, it needs a firm definition of what a swing (and miss) really is.
"Crossing the plate" seems vague. Looking down, does the bat have to just get over the plate, go halfway, or pass over and beyond? Would it work to say that, if the bat crosses the plane of the foul line — so it's pointing into the infield — that's a swing? That would at least be a definite thing a robot could spot.
It seems to me that before embracing a technology solution, Baseball first must define the “swing.” And even though it’s not currently in the rulebook, conventional wisdom has long embraced the notion of the bat crossing the plate. Isn’t that what the 1st or 3rd base umpire is looking for? Certainly they can’t see the strike zone. And what if that checked “swing” that crosses the plate actually makes contact with the baseball? The outcome of that contact matters. Thus, it’s a “swing.”
Thanks for reading and your comment Michael. If the checked swing hits a baseball it's always a fair or foul ball so that's pretty easy. I feel MLB is trying to draw solid lines with technology and am all for that!
Sorry for not being more clear. I 100% agree with credible technology solutions. But in this case, without a clear definition of what the tech is looking for, it will be too complicated. I'm saying that if the bat crosses the plate but misses the ball, it's a strike. They should add this definition to the rulebook for clarity. If the bat crosses the plate and makes contact with the ball, existing rules govern, of course.
Good topic to write about. I agree, it's a messy situation that technology might resolve, though as has already been said, it needs a firm definition of what a swing (and miss) really is.
"Crossing the plate" seems vague. Looking down, does the bat have to just get over the plate, go halfway, or pass over and beyond? Would it work to say that, if the bat crosses the plane of the foul line — so it's pointing into the infield — that's a swing? That would at least be a definite thing a robot could spot.
Good point Wyrd. I just posted a Substack note showing a view from above on the swing check technology. i think it works pretty well.
I went and checked it out. I agree it works pretty well. And the bat is well past the plate there.
It seems to me that before embracing a technology solution, Baseball first must define the “swing.” And even though it’s not currently in the rulebook, conventional wisdom has long embraced the notion of the bat crossing the plate. Isn’t that what the 1st or 3rd base umpire is looking for? Certainly they can’t see the strike zone. And what if that checked “swing” that crosses the plate actually makes contact with the baseball? The outcome of that contact matters. Thus, it’s a “swing.”
Thanks for reading and your comment Michael. If the checked swing hits a baseball it's always a fair or foul ball so that's pretty easy. I feel MLB is trying to draw solid lines with technology and am all for that!
Sorry for not being more clear. I 100% agree with credible technology solutions. But in this case, without a clear definition of what the tech is looking for, it will be too complicated. I'm saying that if the bat crosses the plate but misses the ball, it's a strike. They should add this definition to the rulebook for clarity. If the bat crosses the plate and makes contact with the ball, existing rules govern, of course.