From a coach's perspective....
(Oops, most of the readers have just skipped this post)
I think Kaliix has the best mechanic, and in his most recent post, articulates the reason why - that low third strike that maybe is caught by the catcher, or, maybe it isn't. Actually, it doesn't even really matter whether the catcher legally "caught" it or not. What really matters is whether or not the umpire judged that he caught it.
It seems that there is a wide variety of opinion and practice in regard to this particular question.
We have:
1. Signal the strike, nothing more - the players are supposed to know the rules and whether or not the batter has become a runner.
2. Signal the strike and vocalize/signal the out if the batter has not become a runner - just as you normally would. Otherwise, signal/vocalize the strike, but not the out, since the batter has become a runner.
3. Signal/vocalize the out in a way that is dramatically more emphatic than your normal mechanic if the batter has not become a runner; indicate "no catch/safe" if the batter has become a runner.
In my opinion, #2 is the proper and superior mechanic. The reason I believe this is that there is no way for either the defense or the offense to know whether or not the batter has become a runner without the "batter is out" indication from the home plate umpire. I'm specifically referrring to the case that Kaliix highlighted where the catcher's glove is "in the dirt" as he cleanly gloves the pitch. Did the catcher "catch" the pitch in the umpire's judgement? Without the "out" indicator, there's no way for anybody (other than the umpire) to know. I would suggest that both teams have a right to know what the umpire's judgement was in this case.
If you agree that they do, then you should always indicate the out anytime there is the possibility of ambiguity. Otherwise, you are calling "unnecessary attention" to the "special case" where the batter has or has not become a runner.
I agree with those that suggested approach #3 is excessive and borders on "coaching". It's my responsibility to teach my players the rules and it's my legitimate advantage if my opponent has not taught his players as well.
To me, the most important thing is the visual indicator.
I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret. No matter what you say, and no matter how loudly you say it, on "exciting" plays like this, usually nobody on either team actually hears it. Its kind of like talking to your children.
So, on a strikeout, indicate the strike, indicate the out (if there is one) - always! If your "style" is to do so both visually and audibly, then do so. Don't do anything differently because the conditons were such that the batter became a runner because, in your judgement, te 3rd strike was not legally caught.
JMO
JM
|