[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by BretMan
Tom,

"I don't see that in the initial post. He initially ruled ball 3. It was in his explanation that he admitted there was contact."

Then I'll rephrase my hypothetical question from the coach to the umpire (after his explanation offered that there was contact):

"Why didn't you call a dead ball?"

Your proposed explanation would work fine if the umpire did not call a dead ball, and merely called "ball 3".

If we are to assume from the original post that he did not call a dead ball, then the explanation offered to the coach that "it hit her shirt but it wasn't tucked in" would raise the question of why a dead ball wasn't called.

If he really did see contact (which he did, by his own admittance) then he should have called a dead ball. Right?

If he did not, then I would say that he needs to brush-up on that mechanic.

If he did kill the ball, as he properly should have, then the explanation you propose ("In my judgement there was no contact") wouldn't fly.

My only point, in a roundabout way, was that depending on which mechanic he used his "explanation" could serve to dig himself a deeper hole!

How about it Bagman62- was a dead ball called on that play or not?

Bretman,

From the originial post:

"Batter is left handed and a pitch comes inside, batter bends at the waist and the ball hits the shirt hanging loose, PU call ball 3"

I believe that this would be admission and awareness of the
fact the he saw
the action.