Chisox-Angels

Was the 2 out, 3rd strike in the dirt or not?

On the closeup replay, it appeared to me that the ball hit the dirt and bounced up into the mitt.

Thoughts?

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?

When they blew it up, I thought the catcher trapped the ball. Plate ump's mechanics were awful on that play. They teach us that after the strikeout, you signal the out, then you give 2 emphatic safe signs, signifying the ball hit the dirt. If he'd have done that, none of that would've happened.

It looked to me that it clearly did NOT hit the ground.

However, Eddings made the out signal so how is the batter not out? To the best of my knowledge, you can't call a batter out and then let him run anyway. Eddings made the delayed dead ball signal, then called him out. I'm very confused by this.

Secondly, why was Rapuano not asked earlier? He is the umpire with the best view so why did it take a second trip from Soscia to get the appeal.

Thoughts?

Edding did put up the out sign,so why he changed the call is beyond me. He believed the batter,instead of himself. You have to play the game assuming the umpires will make 2 mistakes,and if the agels had played better baseball it wouldnt have mattered.

The fact he changed the call after putting the out sign up twice is a little wierd,but it did look like rapuano did point to the dirt,but they should have gotten all the umpires together. who knows,and who really cares. Umpires make mistakes,part of the game. It sucks but it happens.

How are the Yankees doing this playoff season?

That was disgusting for the Angels to lose a game like that. While the plate umpire does not have the benefit of replay nine times out of ten that's an out. However, Josh Paul should have tagged the batter anyways. That crew is going to lose their lunch when they see the replay.

how long did it take you to think of this one? great job.

the hammer
 

I was flipping between games and I'm not sure which HP ump was doing this, but one of them uses the hammer in front of his body for his strike mechanic. It looks like most out mechanics, but he uses this for the strike mechanic. That may have been what he was signaling, strike three, not an out.

Eddings will probably have some 'splanin to do. He's got to be feeling nausous, right now. It couldn't have come at a worse time.

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!"???

Well if you watch his strike mechanic all night it was the same all the way to the end.

He signaled that the ball was live first with his right arm extended and then signaled that is was a strike three. I dont think he signaled the third out. He walks on the field and gives the same live ball mechanic.

I think the problem with is mechanic is that he uses the hammer which can be confused with an out signal.

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

are you a big d***k? why wouldn't they istead of dancing around. i'm sure your a great umpire an dont make mistakes, and by the way i have a clue, jerk.

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

The Yankees lose. THHHHHHHEEEEE Yankees lose.

On any ball that close to the dirt, where there may be some doubt whether or not Josh Paul caught it, the tag should have been applied, just to be sure. Eddings signaled strike with the hammer, which he uses for all swinging strikes. Eddings, Crawford, and the Supervisor, all are claiming that the replays they have viewed indicate a change of direction, meaning the ball hit the dirt first. This one will be talked about for quite awhile, I fear.

But your keyboard obviously doesn't have a shift key.

Note to the rest of the board....don't pay any attention to "yankeesfan"....according to him, nothing is ever the player's fault. Everything the umpires do is wrong. Don't even give him the courtesy of a response and he'll leave, much like the rat he probably is.

To me, whether or not the ball was in the dirt is irrelevant. That’s a judgment which I cannot fault a PU (without the benefit of replay) for missing.
What is relevant is the fact that the PU did not respect HIS OWN CALL.
How can any official expect game participants and fans to respect his authority if he himself does not respect his own judgment (as demonstrated by the fact that he changed his mind on a call that he had clearly and correctly made)?

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. usually thats the best indication, but they didn't mention that.

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.

I think your exactly right....the press conference obviously made him look like he screwed up. Even if he blew the call he should have stood by it. Who was the third guy at the conference?

another original, boy your good. must be an indians fan.

i am an umpire myself, and what you are saying is not true what so ever. i would stick by officials and umpires all day long, but its hard to cover this up with all these replays. they dont lie.

Hey yankee doodle, are you really an umpire? When was the last time you went up to a coach after the game and told him how you screwed him out of a victory? Especially on a close a play as this was? I can't believe your ripping the umpires for a call that they had to make in live action, not after a series of slow motion replays. Yeah, it was a dumb post, and I should know, I make them all the time.

i am not ripping the umpires, dont make that response to me. if the coach has something to say about a call i made and he swears up and down i missed it i am not afraid to say "coach, if i missed it, i apologize". i guess i have been lucky so far that i have not blown a call that directly affects a team from wining or losing like the situation tonight. we get paid peanuts, they make big money.

TRAP
 

The mechanics are a little quirky, BUT he did not say HE's OUT, the ball seems to have changed direction OR at the very least brushed the gorund on a trap


Catcher --- TAG HIM DUMMY

Clearly a catch, no change of direction, but the PU does not have replays at his disposal. But he clearly gave an OUT signal. And the whole crew pooched this one as well.

i do agree with that. i want soriano back myself. A-Rod puts up big numbers, but is not a winner like jeter.

The third guy,if I'm not mistaken,was the
supervisor of officials for MLB.Lucky for
him, he wasn't in St.Louis,huh?

Yup. He knew what he called. The possible criticism here is either (1) bad judgment call because the ball was not in the dirt or (2) bad mechanic. On number 2, is banging down the pumped fist really the proper mechanic for swinging strike? I thought most use a diferent mechanic for strike and then pumped fist for out, which is what the confusion is here. Is Eddings claiming that his mechanic is to pump the fist for strike and verbally call "out"?

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

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

Quote:

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.

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

See my first reply on page 1.

A [potential] Lesson For Readers
 

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.

There are 3 pages ALREADY!!!
 

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

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]

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.

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?

Eddings
 

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.

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]

So true, Sal. So true.

We know where you live. :eek:

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]

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.

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...

Glad to see my taxes at work :)

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

Great points!
 

I think you've described it pretty well. The bottom line is what the umpire <u>verbalizes</u> 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 <b>players reaction.</b> 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

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.

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?

Supervisor of officials
 

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?

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.

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.

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

What would the NFHS ump do?
 

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]

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.

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

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?

has anyone been listening to espn radio today? first, the colin cowherd show, and now the dan patrick show. i have been listening all morning and this is all they have been talking about along with the minnesota vikings boat charter extravaganza.

I had ESPN radio on an hour after the game last night, it was all they talked about. Jim Rome first thing this morning, all he talked about for first 30 minutes, so I switched to ESPN radio, and now I'm tired of Dan Patrick re-hashing it. I'll probably tune in to Papa Joe this afternoon and get tired of it again.

Re: Re: Re: Exactly
 

Thanks Carl, you said it much better than I could have,

... and it surely hasn't hurt my post season prospects, state finals two years running.

Must be something in the water in PA?

Thanks
David

I too was initially confused by this post, then I thought about it for a few minutes. I think he meant it was lucky that he happened to be in Chicago for this game, and not in St. Louis, observing that game. Does that help?

Your looking at the wrong replay !
 

Everyone is talking about the replays, and what they show. The problem is, we need a replay that shows what the ‘Umpire’ saw, not what the center field camera saw. Look at a replay from the Umpire’s viewpoint 30 times, and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the call ?

I watched the endless replays last night, and my opinion is that the ball DID NOT hit the dirt. But the umpire thought it hit the dirt, so it is a Third Strike Not Caught…Period.

I think the catcher, also believing he caught the ball cleanly, didn’t even think about tagging the runner. Although, a more experienced catcher may have realized that an umpire, looking at a low catch from behind him, ‘could’ have thought it was a trap, and would tag the runner just to be safe. There’s something to be said for experience.

Lastly, I don’t think the umpire’s first physical motions have that big of an effect on this type of play. His verbal calls are more important. The catcher, and the batter are not looking at the umpire. By the time they do, all the motions are over with anyway. The only signal that matters is the last one, and it should be held until the play develops. I only work HS, and in my association, for a Third Strike Not Caught [TSNC] (not a Dropped Strike Three DST), we say “Strike 3” and hold our right fist up above our head to indicate the ball was not caught. We hold it there until the runner starts running, or the catcher tags the runner. Then, we signal the outcome of the play. In any case, I think a physical signal needs to be held to indicate the situation, whatever it is.

I do think the Plate Umpire’s signals were very confusing for those who can see them. He pointed out to the side to indicate a strike (so I thought), and then hammered to the front for an out (again, what I thought). I use a low, extended hammer to indicate strikes, and a traditional hammer to indicate outs. No one has ever mistaken my signals, because they are different enough. It is always best to have a forward facing strike signal at any level. Just because there was a strike, that doesn’t remove our responsibility to keep our eye on the ball / play.

Nick,

I would have expected your post to run along the following lines:

"If Eddings had been wearing a helmet, he would have had a better view of the catch and made the right call."

Thread Summary
 

I think basically we can all agree that from a replay the ball was cleanly caught.They just blew the call.

Another thing we can all agree on was Eddings bad judgment on his mechanics. He should have been more emphatic in his no catch call or at least not signaled out. He blew it.

Next, I am very disappointed in Eddings and Rieker's waffling of the call afterward. They should have been man enough to say they blew it. You cannot tell me this replay was inconclusive.

I think everyone - especially the teams and media - need to move on. This is why it is a seven game series and not a one game series. Eddings and his crew blew it, and unfortunalty they were not men enough to admit it. But that is no reason to throw in the towel for the Angels- they still have 5 games left to win the series.

That is my two cents on this matter.

Re: Thread Summary
 

A summary summarizes all points presented, not just one persons opinion.

If that's your two cents, you have change coming.

ROTFL.....zing!!! :D

It's all in the peripheral vision, bay-bee!

Indeed, Rich. Comcast here showed a close-up shot even closer in than FOX's shot, and this newer view shows the ball hitting the ground.

Re: Thread Summary
 

Uh, no, we can't all agree, because one replay view did, in fact, show the ball hitting the dirt.

<b>I think basically we can all agree that from a replay the ball was cleanly caught.</b>

I thought so until I saw the slow motion replay. The ball may well have hit dirt, as it appears to rise slightly into the mitt. The problem is the straight-on angle. Is the ball moving within the glove, or did it enter the space of the glove but catch dirt before hitting leather? The side angle is inconclusive. We'll never know for certain, though I suspect that highly sophisticated photographic analysis could tell.

From the <i>New York Times:</i>

[Catcher Josh] Paul said an umpire usually hollers "no catch" when a ball hits the dirt, but that Eddings said nothing.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eddings admitted that he pumped his fist, but said that was his mechanism for signaling a swinging third strike. . . . Eddings acknowledged that he did not say "no catch."

Re: What about...
 

Perhaps a better choice of words would be "a smarter catcher would have tagged him". I'll bet Molina would have tagged him! Just because he's a major league catcher, doesn't mean he always uses his head.

Angels fans should stop blaming the umpire, since they had many chances to win on their own. Nobody forced Escobar to serve up that 0-2 pitch to Crede!

Trap
 

I definitely saw this on the replay, after really getting a good take on this situation this evening on sports center, which emphasized this for at least ten minutes. I saw the ball take a slight change of direction off the ground, following a semi-trap by the catcher. GOOD CALL.

Bottom line here guys, we have a 7 yr veteran catcher that has only appeared in 228 games. Meaning he has only played about 25% of his career, and now we know why!!!! If he was really that good and heads up, he would have sold that call to the umpire. All the GOOD catchers do. Hell, even the media knew that during the umpires questioning, and they no less about the game then Paul.????????????

Re: What would the NFHS ump do?
 

Hello. I am a HS ump in Washington, and there are some rules as to a dropped third strike mechanic. First off, a batter is never verbally called out on strike three. A mechanic that you use to signify a strike (either pointing or clenched fist) is thrown, but there is not words except for "strike three." This is so as not to cause confusion on a dropped third strike. It is the players responsibility on the dropped strike, not the official. The catcher, when in doubt, should always tag the runner or throw to first. The runner, should always run to first. If the runner instead leaves to a dugout, he is declared out once off the field if the strike has been dropped. If the runner goes to first, the umpire has two choices. First is to call the ball dead and claim the catch was clean. Second is to let the play go on, pointing the ball live. IF there is any doubt by the plate ump, ask for help from the field official. When in doubt, tag the runner out.

As for the mechanic of the plate umpire, it is quite unusual for the arm to be thrown as he did. If he was trying to point the ball live, he did it in the wrong order. You must first signal the strike, then point to the dirt to signify a live ball. Many an umpire has died by bad signals and using too many words. An "out" should never be called based on a third strike. If the umpire believed the catch to have been clean, he should have called the ball dead, and then called the batter/runner out.

one more note. Any catcher that rolls the ball to the mound without looking back is in need of some serious teaching. I will fully agree that the catcher made a good choice by quickly moving towards the dugout. All decent catchers, just like all decent umpires want to sell their calls. Right or wrong, the catcher wanted to make it look like he caught the ball cleanly. As soon as the runner goes, however, he should have thrown the ball instead of rolling it towards the mound. The official cannot always be correct, but what he says is what is ruled, and the catcher needs to be ready for that. I have missed dropped third strike calls before, but fortunately i have had catchers that lay a tag anyways.

Re: Re: What would the NFHS ump do?
 

What is with this calling the ball dead stuff after a strike out? Do that and you are screwing the pooch worse than Eddings ever did.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by phillips.alex
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by tmp44
[B]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 Kaliix on Oct 13th, 2005 at 11:06 PM]

Well, I had a GREAT look at the play from my La-Z-Boy, and I can say without a doubt that SOMEBODY screwed up, SOMEBODY will be chewed out, and the UMPIRE will get ALL the bad press.

Just about the only "proper mechanic" post we haven't heard yet is, "you put your left foot in, you put your left foot out, you put your left foot in, and you shake it all about, you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around, that's the proper mechanic for third strike not caught!"

Hey Rich...
 

Hey Rich.........a big Howdy........

Joel

Stop the Personal Attacks
 

I have taken a break from this and all the other forums. I enjoy participating in knowledgable discussions about rules and mechanics.

I do not enjoy personal attacks. We need to show each other a bit more respect than what SoCal showed in his post on this thread.

Read T's article on the website and give it some thought.

Re: Re: What would the NFHS ump do?
 

I don't agree with your mechanics, but that's something that can be discussed. But if you are reporting accurately, your association doesn't properly enforce the rules following a dropped third strike. See 8-4-1i.

BTW: Sal Giaco said the correct terminology for thiis event is "Third Strike Not Legally Caught." Back in the 50s I was taught that the proper reference is "Third Strike Not Caught in Flight." But this evening, after the Astros' thrilling victory over the Cards, while researching for this message, I learned the proper term for high school is, indeed, "dropped third strike." See 8-4-1f.

Lah, me!

Re: Stop the Personal Attacks
 

Bob, isn't it about time for you to join Tee back on the paid site? Officiating.com would appreciate an article that agree with Tee. (grin)

re:re: RE: what this NFHS Umpire Does
 

Catch or no catch, we will never definitively know. So be it.

What is the proper mechanic? About 2 years ago I switched from the "hammer" strike call to the "sideways point (eyes looking forward, of course) for swinging strikes. If it was a half swing, that is accompanied by a "he went" with a point at the batter. Now, if the batter swings, and the strike is caught, I combine my "sideways point" (eyes looking forward, of course)with a mild "out" hammer. I do not verbalize strike three. Now,if the players act confused,they don't realize the ball was caught, and they start to act "hinky" I will verbalize, "batter is out".

If the third strike is not caught, then I just do my "sideways point" (eyes looking forward, of course), with no mild "out" hammer.

Hope this made sense. (Papa C. don't edit this!!)

Bob P.