universal mechanic for strike three

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL
I can remember when catching on those borberline calls having to look back, finding the umpire, looking to see if he had his arm extended to make a call or up in the out position. It really puts the defense at a disadvantage. You can have a runner on base and you have to make a tag and throw, when a tag is not necessary. Sometimes you have to make a throw to first because you don't even get an extended arm. Make a bad throw, runner advances, and guess what. Batter returns to the bench at the end of playing action.

Only a very poorly coached catcher would look back to see if the umpire was signaling anything on an uncaught third.


All catchers playing baseball on the big diamond are taught to just tag the runner if they feel they miss-handled the pitch on strike three. If they miss the tag, then they're taught to throw to first. I caught all the way through high school and in my freshman year of college. I've never played with or against a catcher that inept at knowing his responsiblities.


Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Jan 12th, 2006 at 10:19 PM]

[D-Man]

Why do we need to let the catcher know what's going on, or the batter for that matter?

The best catchers I've worked with tag the runner if his glove is anywhere near the dirt on strike three.

This is a classic example of where slow timing is critical. Let it all happen. Each event that unfolds can lead you to what actually happened even if you didn't see it. Take the Eddings play, my way:

Ptich comes in, AJP (I'm not going to try and spell Pierzynski) swings and misses for strike three. The glove is clearly on the ground. Whether it was caught or not is not critical at this point. If I, as the UIC, step back and signal nothing, I have put no one at a disadvantage. At this point if the catcher rolls the ball back to the mound it's his bad. If he felt his glove hit the ground he would step up and tag the batter-runner, catch or no catch. From the time it took AJP to react, Paul would have had plenty of time to tag AJP. Even in PWL's examples, there would be no risk of any other play. The tag of the batter would be so quick that F2 could have time to throw out any runner. Paul, allegedly, reacted to a call made by Eddings, whatever that call was, it didn't matter. A call was clearly made. Lots of hand motions...adrenaline rush, maybe, who knows?

Sometimes, silence is golden. To quote SDS's quote (OK, it's Klem's quote), "It's nothing unitl I call it!"

D

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL
A. You have a runner on base. They are off the base a little to far because they think the ball might get past. You have a chance to throw them out.

So you're saying that runners take up their leads based on predilection that the pitcher will pitch wild. Interesting idea, although I would have to ask them to leave their crystal ball in the dugout.

Originally posted by PWL Or, you could have a runner stealing. However, you have to reach up and tag the batter first to make sure you don't allow him to advance to first. You want to get at least one out. First base occuppied less than two outs no problem.

If you mishandled the pitch then it's your choice on who you make a play on. You know if you caught the ball cleanly, so why look to the umpire to hold your hand.

Originally posted by PWL B. If the batter takes off before you CAN tag him you have to make a decision on what to do. Why have to throw the ball if the batter is out if you don't have to. Gives another runner the chance to move up on a throw that doesn't even have to be made.

Again, you know if you caught the ball cleanly and what options are available to you. If you think you caught the ball cleanly then you sell it to the umpire with your body language. If there are less than two outs you still have plenty of time to make a play any advancing runner.

Originally posted by PWL C. Remember Brainiac, we're not talking about the obvious call that everybody in the stands can see. If you don't know you have an out for sure, your at a disadvantage if your wasting time having to look around to find out. Did you not see what happened? Catcher thought he caught it, umpire ruled different.

A well coached catcher doesn't wait for the umpire to make the call and help him decide what to do. If it's even close then they are to make a play. Who cares what everybody in the stands sees. They don't make the play for a catcher and neither does the umpire.

Originally posted by PWL Anything else you want to know about? The double cut. The wheel play.

No, not really but thanks for the offer. Those basic concepts were taught at the boys 8U level. Did you have to look hard to find them?

Originally posted by PWL I would hate to have been the umpire behind you if you were catching.

Believe me, I would have hated to have a rookie umpire behind me as well. Especially one who has no idea how to call balks, believes in make up plays, and has no control over his games.

Originally posted by PWL Go Google a graph chart.

Does it bother you that I have the wherewithall to use a valued tool for knowledge to better show my position? I could have taken the time to map out the formulas at my desk, scan them, and paste them here as well, but as you appear to be devoid of the mental faculties necessary to understand them anyhow it would have been a waste of my time.

Originally posted by PWL Possibly one about how your IQ goes down the more you sit behind a computer all day and post on umpire websites.

I know it's hard for you to understand that some of us have a large amount of freedom in their jobs. It's alright though, someone has to be a honey dipper, so don't be ashamed. There's honor in all labor.

Tim.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Tim C
mcrowder:

With all due respect, umpires are taught (by the "Best of the Best") to not say "Batter's Out!"

It is not, as you have intoned, "beneath" any umpire . . . it is quite simply the way the mechanic is taught.

As I mentioned, all that "may" change. Until that time I will not call "Batter's Out!", nor will I teach it, nor will our evaluators allow the statement without a penalty on an evaluation.

Umpiring is slow to change (see HSM and instant replay) and this may well be the next thing to change -- but it has not changed, yet.

Tee

Penalty on an evaluation? I guess I would be dinged, then, as I will not let this situation be unclear in ANYONE'S mind.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL

Posts like this are exactly why you are the laughing stock of every umpire forum (except your own where you are the QueenBee56) on the Internet. Sorry I'm such a disappointment to an apprentice janitor on the graveyard shift. [/B]

There's no need to apologize. To believe I'm disappointed in you would imply that I had any real expectations about your competence that you somehow didn't live up to. I'm not disappointed at all. In fact, the idea that you presented about a catcher needing to look back at the umpire is exactly what I would expect to read from you. If you had written anything nearly as intelligent in the past about officiating baseball as you have about toothless crack whores, then yes, I would have been disappointed with your last several posts.

Now, it's back into the plant for me to supervise a new iso-phase buss installation. Before I go, I'll have to call one of the "journeyman" janitors to come clean up the mess I just made on my blueprint table from spilling my coffee on it while having a good laugh at your expense.

Tim.

[gobama84]

Originally posted by PWL


A. You have a runner on base. They are off the base a little to far because they think the ball might get past. You have a chance to throw them out. Or, you could have a runner stealing. However, you have to reach up and tag the batter first to make sure you don't allow him to advance to first.

Do you mean a runner on 1st stealing 2nd?
Then the catcher should throw to 2nd because the BR is already out because of 1st base occupied.

You want to get at least one out. First base occuppied less than two outs no problem.

If the runner is stealing 3rd, take your choice, throw to 3rd or 1st and get at least 1 out.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Tim C
MC:

What a great, well thoughtout response.

And you didn't mention if a fast ball could "rise" or not.

Actually your points are perfect and logic strong.

Since I am the "ONLY" grizzely vet (so far) to comment maybe, just maybe, someone other than me will give details and reasons for not calling "Batter's Out!"

Under a private e-mail one of the very best poster's on this board is trying to contact some of the current working "school umpires" to get the most current feelings and philosophies about this issue.

I am willing to bet that once in the history of umpires (before even my day) when a fly ball was caught in the outfield the PU was told to say: "OUT!" and after some time that was changed to "That's a catch!" -- so things can change.

I would hope this thread stays above "name calling" by all the potential posters.

Thanks for a great (and impassioned) post.

Always remember, some people probably believe that the world is flat.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Jan 12th, 2006 at 05:32 PM]

You're not the only Grizzly old smelly one out here doing this. I do not even declare the batter out on the infield fly. I just say "Infield Fly" - everyone knows that the batter is out.

I was taught the same way as many other "oldies". But I too have heard that there may be a change coming thanks to this past year's disaster in MLB.

I am not going to down trod those who wish to declare that the batter is out but it can turn into a $hithouse is certain cases. Anyway, let's see what the talking heads come up with (if anything at all). Until then, I will remain silent about the batter being out.

[Kaliix]

If there is a swinging strike three and you the umpire determine that the ball was not caught, you should simply signal a strike.

The problem starts with umpires who signal outs and strikes the same way. IMHO, they should be two different signals. I point to the side for a strike, and hammer an out (unless it's the 3rd strike looking, that is a whole different animal). If you signal both the same way, then you are responsible for any confusion resulting from your poor choice of signal.

If you simply signal strike on a 3KNC, you are not putting anyone at a disadvantage, you are simply making the correct call, which is a 3rd strike but not an out. While the catcher can't see you, the pitcher (and everyone else) can. The pitcher can signal to the catcher to tag the BR or throw to a base by a simple point.

The biggest problem is signalling outs and strike the same way. That is a prescription for confusion.

[Tim C]

Please read this post completely:

I have been contacted by two sources (just like ESPN I need an original and a confirming statement by two separate sources before I use the information) who have confirmed what is taught in the umpire development program for this specific activity.

One of the sources is a person that works on a daily basis with MiLB umpires of all levels. The second source is a minor league umpire evaluator in my area.

I report the following without emotion, committment, or opinion. This is what is taught at both five week schools and at one week clinics taught by professional umpires.

************************************************** *******

1. The issue is being reviewed by MLB & PBUC.

2. It is expected that any changes or updates will be released at the UDP / PBUC school in Feb.

3. Today, the official and accepted MiLB mechanic is to signal the strike, then make "safe" signal and verbalize, "no catch". Out's are the same, with a clear and slightly exagerated out signal (As needed), seperate from the strike signal.

************************************************** *

So that is what is being taught. As my town ONLY has AAA baseball any comments I would make about what "actually" happens once pitches are thrown would be at a relativly high level of professional baseball.

Also one of the semi-regular posters on this site went to Evans Florida Clinic and I was hoping that this "hot topic" may have been discussed and we could get comment that is very current.

Does this "direction" help us any?

Tee


[Edited by Tim C on Jan 13th, 2006 at 09:17 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Tim C
3. Today, the official and accepted MiLB mechanic is to signal the strike, then make "safe" signal and verbalize, "no catch". Out's are the same, with a clear and slightly exagerated out signal (As needed), seperate from the strike signal.

Many umpires in our area use this mechanic (with a possible excpetion of the exact verbage of "no catch"). It's become more prevalent over the past couple of years.

And, of course, it's used only when there's confusion. A clearly caught pitch, or one that goes to the backstop, for example, doesn't get any "extra" mechanics.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
If you mishandled the pitch then it's your choice on who you make a play on. You know if you caught the ball cleanly, so why look to the umpire to hold your hand.

Again, you know if you caught the ball cleanly and what options are available to you. If you think you caught the ball cleanly then you sell it to the umpire with your body language. If there are less than two outs you still have plenty of time to make a play any advancing runner.

In case you missed it, in the play in question the catcher thought he caught the ball cleanly, and tried to sell it to the umpire with his body language, but the umpire ruled he did not catch the ball.

You are not making any sense. If R2 is stealing or is far enough off the base to be picked off, the catcher must make a choice. He can either tag the batter and let R2 go, or play on R2 and let the BR take first. If the catcher is aware of if the BR is out or not, it makes his choices a lot simpler.

[D-Man]

Instead of selling the catch with body language, F2 can tag BR anyway. It takes less time.

D

[LDUB]

Originally posted by D-Man
Instead of selling the catch with body language, F2 can tag BR anyway. It takes less time.

D

What if R2 is stealing? The catcher doesn't have enough time to tag the BR and throw to third.

[D-Man]

I don't totally disagree but a good catcher's instinct is to tag the batter if he thinks the catch/no catch of the pitch is close.

The batter does not have that instinct. A batter almost (I'll give you the few freak times, but not on a swing, he's still got to uncoil) always hesitates before going to first on an uncaught third strike. This is true even if it goes to the backstop, and then, the catcher has no shot.

I believe that unless it's a pre-planned steal of third, which, with a pitch in or near the dirt, the odds of getting the runner are pretty slim anyway, I would still, instincively, apply a tag on the batter.

Also, your scenario can only occur with less than two outs, otherwise the tag of the batter would end the inning anyway. That, coupled with the chance of first base being occupied and the overall rarity of the steal of third, makes it sound like you're picking on Cindy Crawford's mole.

OK, I'm not that pretty.

D

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL

Call the law. QueenBee has stolen my thunder once again with:

A. her great comprehension of playing the sport.
B. her far much greater skills at umpiring.
C. her job (if she even has one, no one could work and have as much free time as she does).
D. her superior knowledge of cutting and pasting Google graphs.
E. her ability to whine and cry more than any woman I've ever seen.
F. her penchant to distort facts and fiction.

Oh, how will I ever deal with it? Like I always do I suppose. (Flushing sound) There, dealt with.

Wow, what a well thought out rebuttal by a 51 year old man. Did you have to first write that out in crayon before you typed it?

Please tell us again why a catcher would need to look back at the umpire before he decides what to do. When you reply, could you show us you have a maturity level above that of a fourth grade elementary school student just this once?


Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:10 PM]