|
Why do we need to let the catcher know what's going on, or the batter for that matter?
The best catchers I've worked with tag the runner if his glove is anywhere near the dirt on strike three.
This is a classic example of where slow timing is critical. Let it all happen. Each event that unfolds can lead you to what actually happened even if you didn't see it. Take the Eddings play, my way:
Ptich comes in, AJP (I'm not going to try and spell Pierzynski) swings and misses for strike three. The glove is clearly on the ground. Whether it was caught or not is not critical at this point. If I, as the UIC, step back and signal nothing, I have put no one at a disadvantage. At this point if the catcher rolls the ball back to the mound it's his bad. If he felt his glove hit the ground he would step up and tag the batter-runner, catch or no catch. From the time it took AJP to react, Paul would have had plenty of time to tag AJP. Even in PWL's examples, there would be no risk of any other play. The tag of the batter would be so quick that F2 could have time to throw out any runner. Paul, allegedly, reacted to a call made by Eddings, whatever that call was, it didn't matter. A call was clearly made. Lots of hand motions...adrenaline rush, maybe, who knows?
Sometimes, silence is golden. To quote SDS's quote (OK, it's Klem's quote), "It's nothing unitl I call it!"
D
|