|
As we all know, under ideal conditions it is not too critical to make a call on plays such as these because the players always tend to "fix" the issue and render it moot.
One of two things generally happen on a swinging strike three where the pitch is low and there is some question as to whether the catcher caught the ball in the air or it short-hopped into his glove:
1.) The catcher slaps an immediate tag on the batter, or
2.) The batter shows indifference and simply walks back into his dugout
Umpires often get lulled into the presumption that this is a no-call situation, especially umpires who call at higher levels because the players know the routine all too well.
The players are so good at handling this issue it hardly even matters whether the umpire makes a call or is even correct in whatever he views of the situation, i.e. caught or uncaught pitch.
I'm sure we all recognized the cavalier manner in which Doug Eddings called the third struck on Piercynzki. Eddings slipped into his "no-call" mode and then, like a lightning bolt out of the blue, the play exploded in his face complicated by TWO issues ...
1.) The catcher did *not* place a tag on the batter, and
2.) The batter initially took a step away (indicating his indifference) and then, suddenly, took off toward first.
Eddings was then FORCED to make a ruling. He could no longer rely on the usual mechanisms that cause this type of activity to be improbable. It was happening! And it was happening during a League Championship game ... a game that mattered greatly ... that was being watched by millions of viewers ... and would be scrutinized by many camera angles.
He had to choose. Was the pitch caught or not?
He chose ... NOT.
Quite frankly, I think he flipped a coin on the matter because I don't think there was any way he could have made that fine discernment and, besides, I don't even think he saw it at all.
I don't think the problems that arose from the incident had anything to do with any of Eddings' mechanics.
The whole mess stemmed from three simulataneous issues ...
1.) The runner took off running on a ball that was CLEANLY caught by the catcher (notice I didn't say that he necessarily caught it in-flight). Normally, if the ball does not escape the catcher, the batter doesn't even bother. Piercynzki DID run, however.
2.) The catcher didn't go through the routine of tagging the batter.
3.) And, finally, Eddings picked the wrong side of the coin when guessing. The DEFAULT call on a play like that (one you don't see) is that the batter is OUT and that the ball was CAUGHT. It is a much more egregious error to be wrong in the direction Eddings took than to be wrong in the other direction. Had Eddings removed Piercynzki from 1st base and replays subsequently showed that the catcher had actually short-hopped the ball, most people would have shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, after all, Piercynzki *did* strike out."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 03:40 PM]
|