In the dirt or not?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by NDblue
It wasn't dropped or mishandled by the catcher.

But the batter is still entitled to run, even though the catcher did not drop the ball. That's the reason "dropped third strike" creates confusion. Your message proves that.

Here's the rule in OBR. It's the same in NCAA and FED.

2.00 CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight....

2.00 IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

6.05(b): The batter is out when a third strike is legally caught by the catcher. Note: "Legally caught" means in the catcher's glove before the ball touches the ground.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by NDblue
It wasn't dropped or mishandled by the catcher.

As LDUB said, you might want to go back and actually learn this rule. A pitch that bounces in and is cleanly gloved is NOT caught, and as such, is a "third strike not caught," commonly but not properly referred to as "dropped third strike."

If you've been calling out batters because a pitch skips in but is gloved, as in Wednesday's ALCS game, then you have been improperly applying a rule, opening yourself up to protests each time.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.

With a true salary cap like one that now exists in every other major professional sports in the United States, the Yankees would be a second division team EVERY YEAR.

Is Cashman a great GM? Who the heck knows? Someone with a team that has THAT track record and there are whispers from Phillies fans and writers that maybe Cashman wouldn't be a good choice for the vacancy.

Is Torre a good manager? Again, who knows? His pre-Yankees teams had a .471 winning percentage. Did he magically become the sage everyone seems to think he is? (Put Phil Jackson of the Bulls in the same category.)

The thing that always drives me nuts are the "national" fans -- the ones who have never even seen a Yankees game in person, live somewhere like South Texas, and are diehard fans of the team. Would these people be fans of the team if it didn't buy pennants every other season? How many closet Philadelphia Phillies fans are there in South Texas? (And let's put the Dallas Cowboys in the same category while we're at it)

[rjhouchin]

In my opinion, the ball bounced on the glove not on the ground so what has "the ball changed direction got to do with anything"

The LA Times printed a picture which clearly shows the glove on the ground and the ball on top of the glove.

All that aside though, what really gets my goat is this:

Umpires are human, humans make errors. There is a whole column in the scorebook labeled "Errors" and errors make a difference in the outcome of the game. Why then, when a human umpire boots a call, is it so difficult for the men in blue to be able to say, "Yup, I probably could have done that better" and get on with the game. No apology necessary, just get on with it.

Instead, its like the same silent code as in the police department. Every one backs the guy who booted it and he comes up with some exceedingly lame excuse for why it was the correct call.

On the whole, umpires do an exceedingly good job. No body is perfect so the statistical fact is, occassionally the guy in blue will boot one.

For me, its the inability, throughout the profession, to honestly say I could have booted that and not the actual booted call that rubs the wrong way.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.

I was mistaken about that signal. At first I thought it was a safe signal made with one hand, but it's just Edding's strike mechanic, nothing more.

George doesn't spend his own money, either. He spends the TV money, he spends the concession money, he spends the fans' money. I'm sure none of George's personal fortune is at risk.

But that's OK. They haven't won a WS since 2000 despite overspending by a huge margin. Enjoy the offseason.

[Rich]

Originally posted by tmp44

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

That's idiotic.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by rjhouchin
In my opinion, the ball bounced on the glove not on the ground so what has "the ball changed direction got to do with anything"

The LA Times printed a picture which clearly shows the glove on the ground and the ball on top of the glove.

And our local Comcast channel here in Chicago showed a huge zoom close-up shot where it was clear that the ball did, indeed, hit the ground. This shot caused several media personnel to change their minds after seeing it. They originally thought for sure the ball was caught, but subsequently stated they believe the ball wasn't caught.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

With a true salary cap like one that now exists in every other major professional sports in the United States, the Yankees would be a second division team EVERY YEAR.

Is Cashman a great GM? Who the heck knows? Someone with a team that has THAT track record and there are whispers from Phillies fans and writers that maybe Cashman wouldn't be a good choice for the vacancy.

Is Torre a good manager? Again, who knows? His pre-Yankees teams had a .471 winning percentage. Did he magically become the sage everyone seems to think he is? (Put Phil Jackson of the Bulls in the same category.)

The thing that always drives me nuts are the "national" fans -- the ones who have never even seen a Yankees game in person, live somewhere like South Texas, and are diehard fans of the team. Would these people be fans of the team if it didn't buy pennants every other season? How many closet Philadelphia Phillies fans are there in South Texas? (And let's put the Dallas Cowboys in the same category while we're at it)

Two points:

(1) Unless you're psychic, how can you know that the Yankees would always be second division with a salary cap?

(2) I lived in New York City in 1957, when you could get into the grandstands for 75 cents. I imagine I've seen more Yankee games than you have seen major league baseball.

One thing I know: There are always poor souls around, like you, who can't stand that someone else wins.

Concerning your knock of the Cowboys: You live in Wisconsin. Super Bowls: Green Bay won the first two - but nothing since. Minnesota (near you) lost four. Tennessee never won. Seattle never went. Pittsburg won four, the last one in 1980. Oh, the last time they went, they lost to - gasp - Dallas.

Dallas won five (tied for most): 72, 78, 93, 94, 96.

Do you dislike Dallas because:

(a) they win and your teams don't?
(b) they're in Texas?
(c) they're the world's favorite football team (based on sales of NFL products)?
(d) all of the above?

[gxc]

Whether that ball hit the ground or not - even some of the replay angles are inconclusive, so I doubt the PU was 100% sure - we all know that because of the angle and from experience.

In this case, where the PU can't be 100% sure - if he sees the catcher walk to his dugout and toss the ball to the mound when he could have EASILY tagged the batter - then the PU is at least 100% sure that the catcher has no doubt. Still not a deciding factor, but worth considering.

I believe the PU allowed the batter's reaction (by running to 1st base) to incorrectly influence his decision. We've all experienced this - a player reacts differently than expected, so we question what we saw. We make calls based on player reactions more than we want to admit.

If he had a chance to do it again, I'm sure the PU would react differently. I recommend the trigger or shooting gun method for calling strikes and using the fist for out calls. Unfortunately there is no uniform mechanic for signaling a dropped 3rd stike - that's one reason that catcher's normally make the tag on questionable catches, and why we can rely on their reactions a little more.

[briancurtin]

Originally posted by gxc
I believe the PU allowed the batter's reaction (by running to 1st base) to incorrectly influence his decision.

from ESPN.com: "I should have either said, 'No catch,' or, if I did have a catch, that he was out. Which I never said: 'He's out,' " Eddings said.

he knows he should have said "no catch."

Originally posted by gxc
If he had a chance to do it again, I'm sure the PU would react differently.

from ESPN.com: "Given another chance, umpire Doug Eddings said he would've been more emphatic in making the call that helped the Chicago White Sox win Game 2 of the American League Championship Series."


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playof...C-DT9705204233

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
(c) they're the world's favorite football team (based on sales of NFL products)?

Which came first, them winning, or people buying their stuff?

Some people just root for whoever the good team is.

[NDblue]

You guys need to watch the replay again. The BR didn't initially head towards 1B. He crossed the plate heading for his dugout but his teamates were yelling at him to run. So he turned and ran to 1B.

[briancurtin]

yeah, thats what happens when you swing at ball 4 in the dirt

any more gems for us?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LDUB

Which came first, them winning, or people buying their stuff?

Some people just root for whoever the good team is.

But most people are just the reverse.

Of course, the winning came first. And Dallas did it often - and long, as least as far as conference championships and winning seasons go.

But Dallas hasn't won the Big One in over ten years. And they qualified during that time for only one playoff appearance. And they STILL sell the most product.

That's at the heart of most people's hatred of the Cowboys and the Yankees. In one word: success.

Losers always hate winners.

And winners often hate the competition. I don't like the Red Sox, the 49ers, the Steelers. I never root for Green Bay - regardless, even when they play San Francisco. That's because of the Ice Bowl, when Dallas should have won its first championship - and didn't.

But at least I have a reason for my animosity.

Finally, there's one organization that doesn't fit into my little mold: the Cubs.

Who can explain the north side of Chicago?

[Steve Emerson]

Next time you see this look at the batter who is the White Sox catcher, he did look back and he say the PU motion and HE knew what it meant, because he had already had to tag a batter on a swinging stike skipper. Don't you think it's kind of ironic that one catcher knew the umpires mechanics and one didn't. Eddings said he would do it different next time, but his mechanics were the same from the start of the game to the end. Also it should be a clue to the catcher that when you do not hear the umpire say "OUT" you better do something besides roll the ball to the mound.