Quote:
Originally posted by briancurtin
one more thing: eddings admits that he should have verbalized in that one situation, being either "no catch" or "hes out". he didnt say anything, which lead to at least some of the confusion i think. you may have read this, but he talks about his lack of verbalization here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playof...C-DT9705204233
|
Thanks for the link to the article.
I remember being very interested in this controversy because of my preference to use the hammer.
In the photo on the link you provided, you will notice that Eddings has his arm parallel to the ground. That is NOT his usual strike call and it is completely unclear what that signal means. The next thing he does is give a hammer.
To the untrained eye, it seemed like the FIRST signal was a strike call and the SECOND signal was an *out* call. If the second signal was not an out call, it calls into question what the FIRST signal was supposed to mean.
As I remember the play, there was no question that Pierzynski swung at the pitch. It was far from a checked swing.
The fact remains, "hammer guys" simply must put more thought into this situation because of the natural confusion with the strike signal being the same as an out signal.
Pointer guys have no problem:
They point for a strike. There can be absolutely no confusion that this is anything other than strike call, and nothing more.
If the umpire is convinced the ball was uncaught, then there is nothing more to do. He has signaled a strike ... has *not* signaled an out ... and the players are now responsible for the situation. They have all the information they need.
If the umpire is convinced the ball was caught, then he follows his strike mechanic (i.e. point) with a hammer, a unversally understood and recognzied signal for an OUT. No confusion.
It just seems easier to me.
I've always been a hammer guy because THAT seems to be the way most manuals and clinics teach it. But I can now see that there is a certain flaw with the fact that a strike and out signal are identical.
99 percent of the time it doesn't matter. The play that Eddings got caught up highlights the flaw.
Notice, at the end of the article, that they say that there is NO REQUIREMENT for the umpire to say "no catch." But a hammer guy is just about FORCED to say something since he has no signal to differentiate from a simple strike and a out.
I understand your mechanic, however, and I think it would work.
I'm still debating myself on this matter.
I just called a Varsity practice game the other day and used the point for the first time in many years. I felt very comfortable with it.
But I'm still conflicted.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN