Gentlemen,
While not unsympathetic to those who express a reluctance to modify their "third strike uncaught" mechanics for fear it might hurt their chances of advancement due to the evaluation criteria of their association/league, I feel that the reluctance leaves an important issue "begging".
In those situations where a batter DOES become a runner on an uncaught third strike, I would suggest that the PLAYERS have a RIGHT to know whether or not the batter did, in fact, become a runner on the pitch. In my experience, in the majority of such situations, it is quite obvious to the players whether or not the third strike was caught and, therefore, whether or not the batter became a runner.
However, in a "significant minority" of such cases, it is NOT obvious to the players whether or not the third strike was legally caught. More to the point, it is not obvious to the players whether or not the umpire JUDGED that the third strike was caught - which is actually the more relevant question.
So, if there is the possibility of ambiguity as to whether or not the 3rd strike had been judged legally caught, and whether the batter had become a runner or not, it seems that the mechanics endorsed by Evans and others are clearly "better umpiring" in such situations. It seems to me that an umpire who chooses not to clarify the ambiguity through his use of inferior mechanics is derelict in his duty as an umpire. Does anyone disagree?
JM
|