In the dirt or not?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

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.

Tim, are you reading what I said? I was refering to when a third strike is not caught, when less than two are out. What I said is correct. I say "the batter is out", and then the batter, who usually instinctively runs, will stop running, which he is supposed to do. I use a loud and clear voice so I do not have to repeat myself, since usually everybody is yelling and screaming in the stands, and I want to be heard. If R1 runs, that's his problem. I just don't want him to think he is forced.

When a swinging third strike is caught, I don't verbalize at all, since it is obvious to everyone in attendance.

C'mon Tim, give me some credit. I know what I'm doing out here.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Oct 13th, 2005 at 04:12 AM]

[irefky]

I figured this would be a topic today. First, I hate the mechanic he uses for strike calls. My mechanic is, strike, point to the right. As a high school ump, standing on the bases, it appears this is an out call. I noticed this mechanic right off the bat. However, this is the same mechanic used by him all year, no one said anything until now.

I think this will be looked at and changed. I also think, that there is no possible way the PU could have seen whether the ball was caught, dropped, or trapped. If so, let me know how, because I cannot see it. I always get help from the base fellas. As a PU, if F-2 does what he did last night, I have an out.

I guarantee, when Crede hit the ball and the run scored, the umps were praying it would be an out and go into extra innings!

Over all, Mike Sciosia (sp?) was a class act. He did not dwell on this with the media but said they did not play good enough to win the game. A class act.

[Kaliix]

This play brings us back to an interesting point, is it a good idea to use the fist pump for a strike signal, considering it is the same signal that is used for signalling outs. As evidenced by the play in question, there is no doubt that if the plate umpires strike signal was some sort of point to the right (or basically anything that didn't resemble a out call) instead of a fist pump (out call looking signal), we probably wouldn't be talking about this play.

The vocalization of "no catch" is a good idea, but I don't think that saying that can be relied upon. I like the idea of signalling safe because it atleast indicates that there was no catch.

Personally, I give a full fingered point out to the right without turning my head. On a caught third strike, I give the out signal. If a third strike is not legally caught (thanks Sal), I signal strike but not out. I feel that is the most proper way to do it. The runner isn't safe yet, or out for that matter. The signal just indicates what happened, a strike. My default manner of signalling gives me the least chance for error. No out signal, just a strike signal. (While I realize that the head turn strike call is expected at higher levels, with one or two umpires, I feel I can miss something if I do that, so I don't turn my head)

As this situation shows, too much can go wrong signalling strikes with a fist. IMHO. Your mileage may vary...

[Rich]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
All,

Thank you all for giving me a great idea for an article. I arrived at work this morning at 6:30 am only to see a four page thread where none had existed the night before.

Therefore, I just submitted a 1350 word article to Carl. Thanks for the input.

Peter

Glad to see my taxes at work

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

We know where you live.

what is this suppose to mean? i would love to know.

[David B]

Originally posted by 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]

I think you've described it pretty well. The bottom line is what the umpire verbalizes and the only ones who know that is the PU, F2 and the batter.

The batter having caught the entire game knew the umpires "vocal" calls and that's what tipped him that the ball was in the dirt.

He knew that when the ball was questionably caught by F2 that the umpire would say "Batter out," or something to that effect.

On the play in the 9th inning, the batter knew that the umpire said nothing and thus he knew immediately to run.

One of the keys that veteran umpires will notice is the players reaction. The batter never hesitated in running to first - that tells me he knew what the call was.

The Angels catcher basically thought he caught the ball and ran away before he had time to hear the umpires "verbal call."

Now I agree that Eddings mechanics I don't like personally, but then he's in MLB and I'm not. But, I had a similiar play two years ago in a HS state playoff game and pretty much had the same results, and I don't signal an out on a third strike with the fist unless there is an out.
(BTW, the video showed that the ball did hit the dirt in my game also)

With so much tension, noise and etc., in a playoff atmosphere, the ones who are paying attention the most will get the advantage on these type of plays.

But, I agree with you that I don't understand why they didn't get the crew together and confirm - U1 and U3 have a great look on the play also and U3 had to make a call of out or safe also.

Thanks
David

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Makes my day that $200 million isn't enough to buy a World Series.

The Yankees lose. THHHHHHHEEEEE Yankees lose.

I am always amazed when amateurs apply their provinicial attitudes toward professional sports.

The Yankess play in the largest media market in the United States. They drew over four million fans this year. They are in the business to make money, and winning teams make money because they bring in more paying customers and have higher TV ratings. If the team wins a championshihp, they make even more money.

Speaking of championships: When the Yankees won four in a row from 1936 through 1939, the cry went round: "Break up the Yankees!" We heard the same plaintive wail when they won five in a row from 1949 through 1954.

It's just plain ignorant to hate the Yankees because they spend money to improve their chances of winning. Suppose the Colorado Rockies had the resources of the Yankees. Don't you think they would spend some of it to put together a better team?

There's nothing wrong with hating the Yankees. But pick a logical reason, like: They almost always beat my team.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by yankeesfan

what is this suppose to mean? i would love to know.

It was a joke from an admitted Yankee fan.

I would imagine that Rich knew it was a joke. If not, I'll put 2 dozen smilies on my next post for the humor-impaired.

I'm a Yankee fan too. Have been since the mid-50's. I ain't a fanatic though. I enjoy baseball- it's a great game.....but it ain't a matter of life or death.

OK?

[Bandit]

Just got into work. Listened to all of the radio idiots talk about this play. And we think players and coaches can come up with some dumb things to say and argue. Good thing they can't get input from the "booth". I scanned the replies and did not see this point....did anyone see the news conference and how the supervisor of officials started taking over all of the plate umps answers after he started putting his foot in his mouth. Like starting with the point....sometimes you have to read the actions and reactions of the play and players to form your call......hmmmm.....wonder why he didn't read the batters actions of starting to his own dugout and call an "OUT"! Next question, lets see how much the umpires association thinks about his call....just how quickly will the plate umpire be working his next game?

[johnSandlin]

I think Rich Reiker who was the umpiring supervisor at the game said it best by being inconclusive at best. That was a tough call that Doug had to make last night.

Give Eddings credit, it was a tough call and he stood by it all the way even through the post game news conference.

[JasonTX]

I am in no way a baseball fan and I just happened to stop the channel surfing on the game and seen the play in question. The times I have watched baseball I have seen some plays where there were some definite catches, but the catchers still tagged the batter. This one should be on the shoulders of the catcher. When in doubt, no catch. Not sure if that's the rule for baseball, but that seems fair to me.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by mbyron
I thought the replay was inconclusive about whether the ball hit the ground.

But Eddings CLEARLY signaled the strike AND the out. And THEN the catcher rolled the ball in. What was that all about?

The problem rests with Eddings' mechanics.

As we all know, we can basically place umpires into one of two categories with regards to the method they use (i.e. mechanic) to signal a strike. Some are "pointers" and some are "hammers."

The problem with the "hammer" is that it looks much like the classic "out" signal. A "point" could never be confused for an "out." So, in that regard, pointing has its advantages with regards to clarity.

That doesn't make the hammer as a strike signal wrong, however. Eddings is a hammer guy.

The players will quickly figure out whether an umpire is a pointer or hammer as most umpires are consistent in this regard.

Most umpires who employ the hammer have to be diligent about SAYING that a batter is out to avoid any confusion. A pointer really doesn't have to worry about that so much as he never gives any signal that could remotely be confused with the classic OUT signal.

The problem with Eddings is that his swinging strike mechanic has TWO PARTS. The first is an extended right arm signal (presumably signaling a strike) followed by a hammer.

There is no way to interpret the first signal (the extended arm) as anything other than a STRIKE call; which calls into question what the NEXT signal is supposed to mean.

Harold Reynolds interpreted the extended arm signal as a "he didn't make contact signal" followed by the "strike" signal. Who ever gives a "he didn't make contact signal"? That is very unusual and certainly not standard if, in fact, that is the intent of those signals, as Harold Reynolds interpreted them.

In the post game interview, Eddings gives no explanation for his extended arm signal, focusing only on his pumping motion which he characterized as his usual "swinging strike" mechanic.

What Eddings signaled was clear, what the signals meant was NOT clear ...

1. He extends his right arm = STRIKE!
2. He then pumps his right arm = REALLY A STRIKE! ???

* * *

The bottom line is this:

This is a commonly missed call on the part of the plate umpire. When the ball is *THAT* close to the ground it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make any fine discernment about whether the ball was caught cleanly or short hopped into the catcher's glove.

Whether the umpire gets it right or wrong is immaterial since the players always "fix" this with their follow-up actions.

1. The catcher tags the runner right away and the point is rendered moot.

-or-

2. Despite the ball being uncaught, the batter shows indifference and returns to the dugout, also rendering the point moot.

* * *

I think the blame rests solely on the catcher for not doing his job, although I am of the opinion that Eddings' strike mechanic has too many moving parts, lending itself to the type of criticism he is now getting.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[tmp44]

I don't know if Eddings knew the ball hit the ground, only for the simple fact of what he did the inning before on the third strike not caught...he waited until the tag was applied before the punch.

Here's a point that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. Everyone is basing this one what Eddings did with the fist pump after the strike. But how did this affect the catcher's thinking that it was a strike 3/out? Watch the video again...THE CATCHER NEVER LOOKS BACK AT EDDINGS TO SEE THE FIST PUMP. HE IS ALREADY OUT OF THE SCREEN WHEN THE SIGNAL IS GIVEN. My guess is that Eddings must have verbalized strike and not out (if anything at all) and the catcher and batter just thought two different thing. Thoughts?

The proper NFHS mechanic I've always been taught is the fist pump for both strikes and outs. What would the HS ump do here?

[Edited by tmp44 on Oct 13th, 2005 at 11:38 AM]

[gordon30307]

Hey guys we have all had this play happen to us. Sometimes it's obvious it was a trap and sometime it's not. In this situation I'm looking for the catcher to help me sell the call. Ideally he tags the batter and there's no doubt. If he doesn't I do the best that I can. In super slo-mo some see a catch and some don't. In real time I don't see how it's possible (I'm referring to this play only) to know if the ball was caught or not. I think 99 times out of 100 this is an out. It's a shame that this happened in the ALCS. If super slo-mo is inconclusive I don't see how any of the base guys could have helped. If an out was called I think we can all agree there would have been no compaining from Chicago. I'm just wondering if A J helped sell the umpire that this was an uncaught third strike. If super slo-mo is inconclusive, as per crew chief Jerry Crawford, how could anyone who saw this pitch in "real time" rule it a trap? In my opinion the "correct call" should have been an out. You know, when in doubt it's an out. LOL I'd love to have been in the locker room after the game to here what was said amongst the crew.

Kudos to Scosia (Not sure if this is the correct spelling) for being a class act.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

What are you talking about? He IMMEDIATELY signaled that the ball was in play with his right hand extended out and then he signaled a swinging strike, NOT an out. As the BR headed for first, Eddings trailed him up the line. He knew what he had called.

The extended right arm is a "the ball is in play" signal?

Really?

That's a new one on me.

His strike mechanic is flawed and it probably hasn't caused him any difficulty UNTIL NOW.

Having said that, the catcher screwed up. Also, the catcher's actions were never based on anything he saw from Eddings because the catcher never looked. So WHAT Eddings signaled and HOW the catcher may have interpreted (or MISinterpreted) it is really a specious argument.

If the catcher had simply done his job it wouldn't have mattered WHAT Eddings signaled and it wouldn't have mattered WHETHER Eddings was right or wrong. A simple tag ends the whole issue and we wouldn't be talking about it had he done that.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David Emerling
Memphis, TN