In the dirt or not?

[umpduck11]

Originally posted by SoCalUmp

THis has to be the dumbest fu**ing post I have ever read. Pull your head out of your @ss and get a clue. Do you really thnk they are going to go out there and say "Hey we f'd up!"???

He really thinks that,I'd guess. By the way,
Dumdrum,when did you change your sign-in name?

[Peruvian]

it changed directions because it hit the webbing of his glove. there wasn't even a spec of dirt that came up, nothing what so ever.

You must've not been watching the Fox telecast. There indeed was a puff of dirt and the 'change of direction' was the ball hitting the dirt and into the catcher's mitt. They blew up the glove and dirt area and it clearly hit the dirt...but it was very, very close.

Whatever the case, his mechanics could have been better.

[buckrog64]

The video of this play will get more air time than that poor guy beaten up by the cops in New Orleans.

[Peruvian]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
Another thing I heard during the press conference is that "no catch" is a common mechanic in that situation. Anyone care to comment?

See my first reply on page 1.

[umpandy]

Ladies and Gentlemen (and boys in some cases),

Professional [third-dropped strike] Mechanics that we can all take home are in place from Rookie Ball/A-Ball up to the Major Leagues. Maybe its not something you don't catch at home, but the professionals at this level are paid well to make the big calls correctly. Home Plate Umpires do NOT make a ruling on a TDS call without the assistance of either the third or first base umpire. Therefore, an out signal by the Plate Umpire would be a reflection of what the third base umpire ruled in this case. His ruling? The ball hit the dirt.

My second point is in reference to the discussion in this thread. I may have a slight benefit in that I am late on the action, BUT if everyone here cannot make a ruling on the infamous "frame-by-frame super slow motion" replay that was probably shown thirty times or so, then would you not give the benefit of the doubt to the professional umpires?

Mechanic Used in AAA-Ball & Major League:

In a TDS situation, the base umpire who the batter-runner is facing will make a fist at belt-level to signal a clean catch. If this signal is not made the ruling is no catch.

The majority of you may have not heard of this mechanic previously, but it's simply the best way to get the best angle on these close situations. Imagine, all of these calls with no replay... viewers would go nuts and umpires would be happy.

Finally, my last comment is in regards to the statements and language exchanged on these forums. Maybe a notice to everyone would be that not everyone on here wants to (nor should they/we) be forced to read your irrelevent posts and "come-backs." Therefore, do us all a favor and utilize the invention of 'PRIVATE MESSAGING' so all we read is contribution to a topic, opposed to silly behavior. Remember that not all readers are grumpy-umpies.

[JRutledge]

The ball hit the ground. If you see the super slow motion, the ball changes direction as the ball goes into the glove. They only showed this replay a couple of times. This was also a very difficult play to call for the umpires. I do not see either way how they would know for sure. The catcher needs to do more than what he did if he wanted that call. When you glove hits the ground and you just throw the ball away, shame on you. He should have been clear the umpire called the batter out. They will talk about this play for a really long time.

Peace

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
There is one slow motion replay where it DOES look as if the ball changes direction, from the ground up into the glove.

I agree, I saw it (the change of direction on the replay). Also, it appears Ted Barrett (1st base umpire) didn't think the inning was over either, he's getting into position to make the call at first on the replay.

[Edited by tjones1 on Oct 13th, 2005 at 12:42 AM]

[rulesmaven]

If the ruling had been that the ball was caught cleanly, what would Eddings have done differently on that play, if anything?

Should the umpire tell or signal to the BR that he is out if he is out? Seems like a straightforward question, but what if there had been a man on first there (and less than two outs)? Gets a lot more complicated. Telling him he's out there could give a real advantage to a catcher who doesn't know the rules who might otherwise make a bad decision that lets the runner advance a base.

Seems like third dropped strike scenarios can get really tricky.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
If the ruling had been that the ball was caught cleanly, what would Eddings have done differently on that play, if anything?

Should the umpire tell or signal to the BR that he is out if he is out? Seems like a straightforward question, but what if there had been a man on first there (and less than two outs)? Gets a lot more complicated. Telling him he's out there could give a real advantage to a catcher who doesn't know the rules who might otherwise make a bad decision that lets the runner advance a base.

Seems like third dropped strike scenarios can get really tricky.

If there is a runner at first, and less than 2 out, I will say "the batter's out" loud and clear, that way the runner stops running, the runner at first doesn't think he is forced to run, and a whole world of crap is avoided. There is nothing wrong with calling an out when there is an out.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
Telling him he's out there could give a real advantage to a catcher who doesn't know the rules who might otherwise make a bad decision that lets the runner advance a base.

It doesn't give any more of an advantage to the defense than it does the offense. What if R1 was going to run when the pitch went uncaught, but because of the PU's call he doesn't run?

[DKCanada]

Tough Call, Tough Time... I hope this doesn't affect other young umpires from these prestegious assignments. Perhaps Eddings was unsure of himself because there did seem to be some backpeddling. If that is his mechanic (which I don't think it is) he should change it. Maybe once and for all MLB impliments 1 mechanic for a call that every umpire MUST use (either a point or a fist) just like in football, basketball, and hockey. Just a though.

[Sal Giaco]

I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in as well...

1. Just so we are on the same page, the correct term for this play is "Third Strike Not Legally Caught" - Some people say "dropped third strike" but that phrase can lead to some confusion

2. As a post said earlier, whether the ball was caught cleanly or not is NOT the issue here - atleast not from an officiating standpoint. The REAL issue is the mechanics used by the PU - Doug Eddings

3. Eddings uses the hammer for all first and second strike calls. On swinging third strikes, he sticks his right arm straight out and then pumps his fist. That throwing out of the arm is just his own style - it really doesn't mean anyhting from an officiating stand point

4. If you look at the photo on espn.com, Pierzynski is looking at Eddings "quirky" strike 3 call with his arm sticking straight out (unnecessarily). If he would have just came out with a fist only, Pierzynski would have just kept walking to the dugout. But because he saw the arm out only and no verbal call saying it was a catch or no catch, he took off running

5. The proper mechanic for a third strike not legally caught is simply pointing straight out to the side and saying "strike 3 - no catch". Some umpires take it one step further by saying "strike three, no catch" and then give the safe mechanic to let the catcher and the batter know that we don't have an out yet

6. At times, if the catcher drops the ball on a third strike not leagally caught, Eddings will stick the right arm out like he always does but will wait for the catcher to tag the B/R and THEN, pump the fist for an out call. He did this 1/2 inning earlier on a swinging third strike in the dirt that the catcher picked up and tagged the B/R.

7. Eddings hung himself by pumping his fist for what looked like an out call. Perhaps he should have just left his arm straight out which let's everyone know that the pitch is strike 3 but NOT necessarily an out.

8. All this may have been avoided if Eddings would have immediately glanced at U3, Ed Rapuano, to see if he had a closed or open fist - signaling a catch/no catch. If Rapuano had a catch, then Eddings could have sold the out call by pumping the fist a couple times and saying "that's a catch" which may have prevented Pierzynski from going all the way to first.

9. I'm surprised Crawford didn't get the whole crew together to discuss the call. I thought that is what MLB wants them to do on contraversial calls.

A few other comments.... Props to Manager Mike Sciossa for not burying the umpiring crew. He could have went off in the press conference but instead acted extremely professional about the whole thing. I feel really bad for Eddings because he had a great game behind the plate but instead, he'll be remembered for the contraversial call. It just goes to show you how humbling the game of baseball is.... just when you think you're having a great game and with two outs and two strikes in the bottom of the ninth inning, everything just falls apart.

PS. Why does Eddings have his number embrodiered on the collar of his undershirt? That looks like something a "rat" would wear - not an umpire. Despite him being a "pretty boy", I think he's a damn good umpire - regardless of what happen tonite.

[Edited by Sal Giaco on Oct 13th, 2005 at 02:47 AM]

[Peruvian]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco
It just goes to show you how humbling the game of baseball is.... just when you think you're having a great game and with two outs and two strikes in the bottom of the ninth inning, everything just falls apart.

So true, Sal. So true.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

How are the Yankees doing this playoff season?

We know where you live.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

If there is a runner at first, and less than 2 out, I will say "the batter's out" loud and clear, that way the runner stops running, the runner at first doesn't think he is forced to run, and a whole world of crap is avoided. There is nothing wrong with calling an out when there is an out.

Steve,

If first base is occupied with less than two outs, the runner isn't forced to vacate on a dropped or uncaught third strike. The batter is out regardless as to whether or not F2 caught the pitch cleanly on strike three.

R1 would only be forced to advance if there were two outs.

For protocol and courtesy purposes, it is best to only verbalize the out call on a swinging strike three loud enough for F1 and B1 to hear you.


Tim.