Dave,

I could not agree with you more. The catcher finishes the job (play)...we do not have this long discussion. In the post game news conference, you can hear (or suggest to yourself) that Doug Eddings may switch back to being a pointer type of umpire because of last night.

I point and have been for the past two seasons because of this exact play like last night that happened to my partner. After watching the whole thing transpire with my partner a few years back and then again with the play last night, is why I will probably always point from now on.

<b>A simple tag ends the whole issue.</b>

Veritas.

Here's a scenario to ponder:

The BR, instead of running to 1B, simply starts walking out to his position as Josh Paul rolls the ball to the mound and the Angels run off the field. Then, as the Angels approach their dugout, the BR runs to 1B and proceeds all the way around the bases.

Incidentally, did anyone doubt, after seeing that play, that the runner would eventually score the winning run?

Stranding that runner would have been like Mickey Owen missing Hugh Casey's spitball and having the Yankees <i>not</i> rally to win.

David: I've been a baseball umpire since 1954. I own every current - and many older - mechanics' manuals. I've visited about mechanics with more than a dozen MLB umpires.

I have never heard of a signal where the umpire extends his arm "out" [sic: can you extend it "in"?] to signal the ball is in play. We signal in three instances with both arms extended out (grin): "He's safe!" "No catch!" "That's nothing!"

Methinks Rich just invented that signal this morning. And we know why. He's mad because George Steinbrenner is willing to spend his money to improve his team, unlike the owner in Florida who won the World Series and sold off all his players.

Exactly
 

Ditto. After having a similiar play in a game several years ago, now I always point to the batter on a non-caught pitch, works great.

Thanks
David

Re: Exactly
 

I can guarantee one thing...in PA where I am if I would point, I wouldn't even smell a post-season game.

I thought the best question of the press conference was the question whether Eddings had ever been criticized for his mechanic, and he said exactly that -- not until tonight. Tonight's game is going to be interesting -- I bet you see every single catcher tag every batter on strike three -- even if the ball is caught belt high. I also suspect the hammer strike mechanic is all but extinct for this year's ALCS.

From the replay, it looked to me as though Paul was flipping the ball back to the mound even before Eddings gave the hammer. So I think you're exactly right. Clearly, Eddings didn't say "out" -- not even Paul is suggesting that, and from Eddings' manner, it looks like he had his call all along. I guess one thing I wasn't watching for on the replay that would matter, though, is whether the pitcher or first baseman relied on the mechanic to vacate the mound or the 1B position. Didn't watch for that on the replay, and if I remember the play right, getting AJ was really a long shot.

I still don't think there's been enough discussion, though, about a point made above -- that Eddings apparently waited until after a tag in an earlier similar situation in the game to give the hammer. (Or, more probably, it just looked like that since he takes so long before he gives his swining strike signal.) I didn't see this replay, though.

My favorite talk radio point this morning was a very extended discussion about the notion that if that play is "close," it needs to be called an out. That's, apparently, the "fair" thing for the Angels. I guess I see some intuitive sense in that, since the batter did commit strike 3. But why is there never any discussion about whether it's "fair" to take a player off first base who deserves to be there under the rules?

Re: Re: Exactly
 

That's too bad. Is it just the point that's wrong? Because that's the PBUC mechanic on a half-swing: Point to the batter and say: "He went."

In my association, we use the mechanic we popularized almost 20 years ago following a fiasco in the college world series (Stanford v Texas): Our field umpire immediately signal "out" on a catch; "safe" on a ball not caught in flight. Solves all our problems.

BTW: Over the years I was severely castigated for suggesting such a mechanic.

Lah, me.

You can read Peter Osborne's opinion tomorrow at Officiating.com - if you're a subscriber.

I'm a pointer myself, but as Eddings does, I also have a two-part swinging strike three mechanic.

I'll signal my usual point for the swinging strike, and then give the pump to signal batter out. If it was a dropped third strike, I'll do the point, but not give the hammer signal until the catcher tags the batter.

I think where Eddings will have some problems is in his consistency with the mechanic. I saw some clips from the game and in two other not-caught swinging third strikes, he didn't give the hammer signal unil the batter was tagged by the catcher.

I think David Emerling has the best read on this situation.


Bottom line is, no matter the facts or other persons' culpability here, it is Eddings who will burn forever..and that's a shame.

I'm a pointer and as I mentioned on page 3-4, I do not like calling NFHS games with "hammers." It is just distracting to me. Especially in those blow out games when I doze off whatching the sky. I look up and see a hammer and I record an out on my clicker.

I just really feel bad for this guy, done it all year as well as his fellow umps and this blows up.

Could you just imagine what was going on in his head when Crede hit the double? Somebody catch it, plz! Did anyone see him do a Fisk, try to get the ball to go FOUL?

I agree, it's a damn shame.

oh, ok. no problem. thank you for clearing it up.

Why's that lucky? Did something happen there that I missed?

Did something happen in St. Louis that I missed?