Dropped strike three

[jstone999]

Just visiting from the Softball board, but couldn't help mentioning something here since it seems relevant.

Last Saturday, I'm a spectator but sitting at the official scorer's table (new scorer's first game). One out, bases loaded, D3K: everyone goes hard. F1 comes in and gets the ball from catcher while standing on the plate: Blue gives R3 out on the force.

Hold on... At the scorer's table everyone is confused. Why a force with less than two outs? Did the umpire see something else? Maybe a fair hit ball that somehow rebounded behind the catcher? (Is this even possible? I don't think so.) Or were there already 2 outs, and had the scorer missed one? (Much more likely.) But play continued after the out. I argued (with the scorer) that there was no possibility other than a D3K. But the scorer tells me there was only one out. We discuss during the rest of the inning.

After the inning ends, the scorer calls the Umpire to the table for an explanation. Says he had 3 outs altogether. That means there was no mistake on the scorer's part that there had only been one out (otherwise he would have ended up with 4.) Why the D3K with less than two outs? There were two outs, says he! I argue (in no official capacity whatsoever) had there been two outs the force at home would have been out 3, inning over. (Three more runs scored afterwards.)

Long story, but I hope my point is clear: confusion ruled in this sitch. Both umpires had brain farts. Why? Because everyone went, and went hard, and the umpires had been trained to wait and see how the play develops. So put me in the camp who says, when BR can't go because the rules won't let him, call him out.

I think that when confusion rules, the umpires have not done their jobs. In this situation, and this situation ONLY--D3K with less than 2 outs--the umpire should call the batter out. It doesn't lead to an advantage of either team. It does avoid confusion.

jeffstone
goettingen

[Kaliix]

This had more to do with the umpire screwing the pooch than a dropped third strike. If everyone is going hard that means all the runners are unaware of the rule as they should know with the bases loaded and 1 out that the BR can't advance to first. If they are running, it may be because of a passed ball more than a D3K. The umpire should have never called an out on the force, that messed everything up. He should have ruled the runner safe, no tag. And if he called an out on the force at home, how come the inning continued? Two umpires didn't catch this???

Thinking on the original issue more, there is one time where a signal other than strike seems appropriate. What about a thrid strike where the BR could advance on a D3K and pitch is close to the ground but the catcher did catch it and not short hop it? Shouldn't there be some signal made to confirm that the catch was clean and there was no D3K?

Originally posted by jstone999
Just visiting from the Softball board, but couldn't help mentioning something here since it seems relevant.

Last Saturday, I'm a spectator but sitting at the official scorer's table (new scorer's first game). One out, bases loaded, D3K: everyone goes hard. F1 comes in and gets the ball from catcher while standing on the plate: Blue gives R3 out on the force.

Hold on... At the scorer's table everyone is confused. Why a force with less than two outs? Did the umpire see something else? Maybe a fair hit ball that somehow rebounded behind the catcher? (Is this even possible? I don't think so.) Or were there already 2 outs, and had the scorer missed one? (Much more likely.) But play continued after the out. I argued (with the scorer) that there was no possibility other than a D3K. But the scorer tells me there was only one out. We discuss during the rest of the inning.

After the inning ends, the scorer calls the Umpire to the table for an explanation. Says he had 3 outs altogether. That means there was no mistake on the scorer's part that there had only been one out (otherwise he would have ended up with 4.) Why the D3K with less than two outs? There were two outs, says he! I argue (in no official capacity whatsoever) had there been two outs the force at home would have been out 3, inning over. (Three more runs scored afterwards.)

Long story, but I hope my point is clear: confusion ruled in this sitch. Both umpires had brain farts. Why? Because everyone went, and went hard, and the umpires had been trained to wait and see how the play develops. So put me in the camp who says, when BR can't go because the rules won't let him, call him out.

I think that when confusion rules, the umpires have not done their jobs. In this situation, and this situation ONLY--D3K with less than 2 outs--the umpire should call the batter out. It doesn't lead to an advantage of either team. It does avoid confusion.

jeffstone
goettingen

[jstone999]

Originally posted by Kaliix
If they are running, it may be because of a passed ball more than a D3K.

Indeed, I think that was the case...but BR went hard as well...otherwise there wouldn't have been a force.

The umpire should have never called an out on the force, that messed everything up. He should have ruled the runner safe, no tag. And if he called an out on the force at home, how come the inning continued? Two umpires didn't catch this???

Indeed, two umpires screwed the pooch. But, again, as I said in my post, I think it happened because the umpires were waiting to see how the play developed, because that is how they have been trained and that is their habit. At the scorer's table the PU explained that "everybody went." He was no longer thinking about how many outs or anything else; he was just looking at the play as it unfolded. He screwed up, no doubt. The question is: would he have screwed up IF he were in the habit of making sure that when BR cannot run on a D3K he should call the batter out. That's my only point.

jeffstone
goettingen

[DG]

Originally posted by jstone999

Indeed, I think that was the case...but BR went hard as well...otherwise there wouldn't have been a force.

Indeed, two umpires screwed the pooch. But, again, as I said in my post, I think it happened because the umpires were waiting to see how the play developed, because that is how they have been trained and that is their habit. At the scorer's table the PU explained that "everybody went." He was no longer thinking about how many outs or anything else; he was just looking at the play as it unfolded. He screwed up, no doubt. The question is: would he have screwed up IF he were in the habit of making sure that when BR cannot run on a D3K he should call the batter out. That's my only point.

jeffstone
goettingen

Everybody went. Smart catcher tags the runner from 3B for the 3rd out. Batter is already out.

[Carbide Keyman]

AS I said in my original post, there is no clear consensus on what to call (or not call)

[UmpJM]

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

[DG]

Originally posted by CoachJM
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

If a batter swings at a third srike that is dropped, in a situation where he can not attempt to run to 1B, and he attempts to run, he will know very quickly, along with everybody else in the park, that he is out.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
]Originally posted by mcrowder

My point was that we are not there to direct either team. Whatever your NORMAL mechanic on strike three, DON'T change it between a normal D3K and a D3K with someone on first.

As an umpire IMO we should tell everyone what is going on. A simple batter is out is all that is needed. No need to go crazy but a verbalized out call is appropriate. IMO we are not "intervening" ourselves into the game.

Side Note: Papa C et al, IMO this topic would make for a good series of articles. Perhaps the topic could read Verbalization of Calls or something along those lines.

Pete Booth

Pete: I'm surprised that no one has bothered to point out that as far as the NFHS is concerned, the correct mechanics for this play are covered in the case book. It's 8.4.1 SITUATION K, and I explain in the new section "Mechanics" (329) in the 2005 BRD.

I won't spoil anybody's fun by quoting the book here.

[DG]

I feel vindicated in my position as far as FED is concerned, but I would probably make the same call/mechanic at any level since habits are, habitual.

[Rich]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Agreed.

And, (I think this came up in this thread), I give the "safe" sign and some verbal (I think it's either, "the ball's down" or "no catch") if there's a question that the strike was not caught (and it's a situation where the batter can run).

I'm with Bob and JJ. It's preventive and good officiating at ALL levels. Had it happen in a men's game on Sunday. Three "batter's out"s after the ball bounced and the batter started for first.

Of course, the offense argued that the runner was STEALING so first base wasn't occupied. Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

[JRutledge]

I say more than once that the batter is out. The players do not listen to you anyway. The defense still throws the ball in many cases. What the umpire says is really not that influential. I also do this regardless of level.

Peace

[LMan]

regardless of the situation, it seems the BR always runs, since everyone is screaming at him to run everytime. Theres no penalty for running (for him), so why not run? Only penalty is that R1 (if present) starts for 2B and gets trapped. But even with the BR ineligible to run on a D3K, Ive never *not* had everyone and his cousin scream at him to run, and he's never failed to run at least 3/4 of the way to 1B before he realizes hes out. Of course, I work a much lower level of ball than you guys, which is a large part of it.

[akalsey]

In a similar situation, do you quickly and emphatically announce ball four if R1 is stealing? Or do you simply use your normal timing and call ball while the catcher is throwing to second?

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by akalsey
In a similar situation, do you quickly and emphatically announce ball four if R1 is stealing? Or do you simply use your normal timing and call ball while the catcher is throwing to second?

How is that similar?

A ball is a ball!

An OUT is an OUT!

Stop reaching! What would you suggest, "that's ball four, don't throw catcher"! Gimme a break!

Even if the catcher throws, what are the odds that R1 is going to get to third?

I'm talking players who play and are coached baseball!

[mcrowder]

It's EXTREMELY similar.

It's an example of the umpire changing the way he calls his play because of subsequent action. It's an example of an umpire saying or doing things he shouldn't be saying or doing that could have an effect on action, when he should NOT be affecting action.

This is a GREAT example.

99% of you out there would NEVER yell "Ball Four, Ball Four!!!" if you saw a catcher trying to throw R1 out when stealing on a base on balls. (Those that would can remain at their respective levels, and hope they never do such a thing in front of an evaluator or assignor).

Yet many of you who see why you should not make THAT call are proponents of "Batter's Out!! Batter's Out!!" as "preventative umpiring".

It's the SAME - and you should not do anything different on this play than you would normally.

If you disagree --- tell me WHY "Ball Four!! Ball Four!!" is the wrong thing to do, but "Batter's Out!! Batter's Out!!" is the right thing to do. I sit prepared to be dazzled by your logic.