Check Mate on Check Swings

Ah, the check swing.  Is anything more blurilly defined in professional sports than the check swing?  The check swing is similar to pornography in that it can only be described by umpires as, “I know it when I see it.”  But, it is my contention that the half swing in baseball is a completely biased endeavor.  Now, I have no problem with how MLB has refused to put a solid definition of what constitutes a check swing into its rulebook – let ambiguity rule! – that’s always been my motto, and except for a couple of ill-fated haircuts it’s worked out ok.

My problem is how check swings are handled by umpires during the actual games.  So, let’s start from the beginning.  The pitcher winds up and throws the ball to the catcher and at some point while the ball is zipping past him, the batter takes half of a swing.  After the catcher catches the ball the home plate umpire either does nothing (signalling that the batter did not swing at the pitch) or raises his fist (signalling that the batter did swing at the pitch).  So far so good.

But then, here is where the check swing goes off course.  If the umpire does nothing (signalling that the batter did not swing) the catcher can “appeal” to the first or third base umpire and they can overrule the call of no swing and put their own fist up to signal that the batter did, in fact, swing.  However, if the home plate umpire puts his fist up (signalling that the batter did swing) then that ruling is final and the batter cannot appeal to the first or third base umpire to overrule the call.  Why is that?  Why can one side appeal to have the call overturned but not the other?  That makes no sense!

Just because the home plate umpire does nothing when signalling that he thinks the batter did not swing does not mean that he is not making a call.  His act of doing nothing is just as much of a definitive call as his act of making a fist.  When he does nothing he is making the call that the batter did not swing.  When he makes a fist he is making the call that the batter did swing.  So why is one call set in stone and the other one appealable?

If the first/third base umpire can overturn the home plate umpire’s call of no swing then that is already an admission on baseball’s behalf that the first/third base umpire has the best view of the play and should therefore be making every call on the half swings that take place during a baseball game.

So, as far as I can tell, there is no reason why if the home plate umpire rules that the batter did swing why the batter can’t appeal to the first/third base umpire when if the home plate umpire rules that he didn’t swing the catcher can appeal to the first/third base umpire.

Just because the call for a batter not swinging is inaction does not mean that the home plate umpire has not made a call.  It is as much a call as him making a fist and calling that the batter did swing.  It’s only fair that either both sides can appeal or that the first/third base umpire just makes all of the calls. 

Am I missing something?  Or is this definitely something that should be changed by MLB?