Specifically, do we need a universal mechanic for a non swinging strike three that is not caught? All the other situations usually can be communicated easily, ie. swinging third strike, check swing third strike, caught non swinging third strike.

WOW,
 

Your question is timely.

A week from Saturday I am responsible to help the State of Oregon Federation Umpire Committee develop a process to eliminate the "Eddings Action" issue of third strikes.

It is interesting that one major occurance can make a system that has been deemed sufficient for decades now need to be reviewed.

I will be interested in what our experienced umpires, that work games when players can run on uncaught third strikes, add to help develop a process for this play.

Good question!

Tee

I agree. A simple verbal anouncement of "no catch, no catch" works for me along with a fully held safe signal. Sorry Chris but I don't like the idea of only extending the right arm mechanic. That's what got Eddings in trouble in the first place. If you want to have a universal signal then I think the one I like to use is a good idea for both the umpire that points to the right on a strike, and the umpire that hammers the strike.

Tim.

I think you're going to find many veteran umpires that disagree on calling "batters out."

Tim.

Ahem,
 

No professional five week school, one week classic, weekend clinic or College Clinic will ever teach an umpire to say: "Batter's Out!"

Never, ever say: "Batter's Out!"

Tee

Note:

This may change of course since one umpire has proven that poor mechanincs can lead to the outhouse very quickly.

T

Smitty stubbornness aside, if it is unclear that a player is out, it is our duty to call him out (if he is, indeed, out). One of the inherent purposes of our being on the field in the first place is to make unclear situations clear. Those that feel "they should know better" are off base - if they DON'T KNOW, they DON'T KNOW - we should not be so high and mighty as to refuse to clarify the situation.

If a 3rd strike is near the dirt, what is the purpose of refusing to simply say "Batter's out". Clarify the out just as you would on a catch of a fly ball or a close tag play. We are so emphatic and demonstrative ("selling" our calls) on every other close play on the diamond - it is absurd to me that there are those who feel it is not their responsibility to clarify this close play.

Sorry to get on the high horse about this - I've just read too much from supposedly intelligent and experienced umpires that indicates that for some reason they feel that in this one particular case, it is beneath them to call the game.

Now that I have THAT off my chest... :)

Perhaps it is a more uniform mechanic to verbalize "Batter's out" when the batter is indeed out - from simple 3rd strikes to close bounces - just say he's out when he's out, and we avoid the entire mess.

PS - I hate the mechanic of "No catch, no catch" in this case. Might as well say, "Catcher, tag him!!!"

Now, specifically looking at the uncaught check swing or caught/uncaught foul tip scenario, I must initially rely in part on my partner assuming I cannot determine whether or not it hit the ground. However, a uniform mechanic in this situation would be nice. I always hate having to try and speed myself up abit so that the BR or F2 know what my call will be.

In my experience I very seldom verbalize "batter out". I have a different mechanic for strike one and strike two than my mechanic for strike three (as most of you do). If batter swings, then everyone knows what going on so my mechanic is nonverbal( a simple pointing of my first two fingers at a right angle to the batter). If he does not swing, then for strike one and two I will use the same mechanic but I will verballize. If it is strike three swinging and caught then I pull out the hammer, but if it is uncaught, then I give a mechanic similar to my strike one or strike two swinging mechanic, I then move to see BR and if tag is applied, I give fist. At no point do I verbalize (unless it is a JV small school game where they are not sure how to button their pants).

Well,
 

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

Tim - I agree with you.

The statement saying that we are taught in every clinic around that we should not verbalize "Batter's Out" is most definitely true.

I also agree that umpiring is slow to change, and in most cases I feel this puts our profession at a disadvantage... but that's another argument.

It is also true that should an umpire be caught uttering "Batter's Out" by any umpire of any decent degree of experience, he will either be gently reminded that he should not do so, or ridiculed and joked about by this experienced and otherwise intelligent umpire with his cronies.

No offense intended to Tim here, or to any of the other highly experienced guys on this board. 99.9% of the time, I highly respect your opinion(s), at least when we can keep it all away from the name-calling we've seen too much of recently.

For some reason, if an umpire like myself - one that works VERY hard to have a full understanding of the rules, one that makes his best effort in improving his handling of coaches, one that invests large amounts of time helping OTHER umpires learn and grow, and recruiting new ones to the profession, and one that busts his butt even on his worst day to get in as good a position as possible on even the most routine of plays - an umpire like me is immediately dismissed by the good-ole-boy network as "bush" because of a refusal to follow a mechanic that makes absolutely no sense??!?!

Here's the crux of the question then... and the point of my ire: WHY? Why is it such an awful faux pas to actually announce that this particular player is out, solely because he is the batter. We surely announce (and loudly, when clarity is necessary) when players are out at any other point in the game. Isn't it an important function of our job, in general, to aid in the flow of the game by actually informing the participants what our decisions are, especially when it's not necessarily obvious? Why do we follow that tenet in every phase of the game except this one?

This is not a case of me jumping on the bandwagon after the escapade in the ALCS. We've had this discussion before, albeit usually not as vehemently on my part. I have acknowledged that the "taught" method is to leave the players in the dark in this case and let the confusion reign. "If the players can shave, the players should know the situation". And in front of these supposed "higher-ups", I use the proscribed poor mechanic.

But now that, even if for only one brief moment in time, it has been shown that even the most frequent of shavers could possibly not know the situation in this particular case 100% of the time. And just possibly, the one time that he doesn't occurs at crunch time in a crucial game... and in front of a national audience.

It's actually a shame that it had to come to this public a gaff to push this issue to the forefront... but now that it's there, I feel compelled to shout from the rooftops. So pardon my over-vehemence on this. It's needed to be fixed for a long long time, and the refusal to call the game in just this one little instance has ALWAYS struck me as asinine.

It's an out. Call it an out.

MC:

I think the perceptual problem that veteran umpires and clinicians alike have with this is steeped in umpiring tradition and decorum.

We've all been taught that to announce "batters out" on a swinging third strike is just showing up the batter. So as to remove the phrase entirely from an umpires on field vocabulary is more than likely why it's been taught this way.


I'm on the fence on this one, but until it becomes an accepted mechanic, I'll continue to use the mechanic I've used for years.

Tim.

WOW!
 

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

BTW:

Mike Port, baseball‘s vice president of umpiring, told The Associated Press that Eddings did nothing wrong and that umpires are not required to audibly call 'No catch.'"

[Edited by Tim C on Jan 21st, 2006 at 10:23 AM]

Hmmm...I am guilty of saying, "Batter's out!". I'll do it when there's a runner on first, less than two out, and the batter takes off after an uncaught third strike. It simplifies things. I think we had this addressed in a thread a few months ago. No need to say it when it's obvious (a caught routine fly ball or ground out that's a no-brainer, etc.).
As for the Eddings fiasco...I don't do the closed fist hammer thing until the batter IS out. Of course, I do point the strike. And I DON'T use any kind of a "safe" signal (the arms outstretched kind of signal) on an uncaught third strike.

JJ

I may have used this one elsewhere but...

Why do we need to do or say anything?

OK, on a check swing attempt, we can go to our partner.

A called strike three may require a call. Make it clear and only say strike three.

However, in the case of Mr. Eddings, everyone in the park knew the batter swung. If there wasn't a catch (gloving of the pitch) then just say nothing, just as though you saw a runner miss a base. Using this mechanic you can even change your mind in a few seconds with less square footage in the sh%#house than the Eddings play (just sell it).

That's my call,

D

About the only time I can think of that I have said "batter's out" and I actually think I probably say "he's out" is on a dropped third strike when 1B is occupied and there are less than 2 outs.

Yes, this is the only appropriate time to verbalize a swinging strike 3 call.

Of course you don't say "batter's out" when it is an obviously caught third strike. I don't think anyone here meant that at all. That would be equal to saying "take your base."

You do need to let the batter, catcher, and everyone else for that matter, know what's going on with an uncaught third strike, with 1B occupied and less than 2 outs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "he's out" in this case.

BTW, our association changed the mechanic for caught fly balls to "he's out" from "that's a catch" about 15 years ago, because the pro schools said there was too much confusion between "that's a catch" and "no catch."

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]

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

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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.

Re: Well,
 

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

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.

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.

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

Re: WOW!
 

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.

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.

OK,
 

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]

Re: OK,
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

It's not the crime (call) that is the ultimate problem, it is the cover-up. Eddings could have and should have corrected the situation, but instead he decided to cover up his mistake.

I taught my 6-yr old players, "If in doubt, tag them out".
If there is as choice to be made, I taught them to go for the lead runner. What do I care about a BR going to first, whom I can agrue about later, when I can get a scoring threat and then maybe the 'extra out' from the BR who was supposed to be out in the first place.

Yes, PWL, it is that easy. No tunnel vision needed. Just clear direction from the coach on what he expects his players to do. My teams, the only ones confused about the situation are the other team and the blues. The other team, not my problem. The blues will either get it right or we have a discussion and then they get it right.

It's like I said before. I caught from the age of 9 years old all the way through my first year of college. I have never looked back to see what the umpire was doing on an uncaught third strike. My coaches would have pulled me out in a heart beat if I did. If the pitch is even close to the dirt you just tag the runner. If you miss the tag you trail the runner up the first baseline about four or five feet in fair territory and throw him out.

Tim.

Great reply Tim, as a former catcher it was up to me to remove all dought on that play, its called good coaching.

That's why I'm in the camp that utimately blames Josh Paul for the incident. Eddings could have been clearer and may have screwed up altoghether, but Paul should have removed all doubt by tagging A.J.

I will always wonder if Molina wouldn't have played on Pierzynski.


Tim.

I'm a yougin
 

I'm young, only 2nd year, and I know my teacher taught me not to say out in this situation.

Whats wrong with verbalizing this call people, other then "we aren't supposed to". It makes no sense.

We leave people, especially the catcher who isn't facing us and can't possibly see our mechanics, in the dark. Do you really think players or coaches really know the difference between your strike 3 out and strike 3 mechanic? They, at that point in the game, may have never seen your strike 3 out machanic.

It can't hurt to say it in my mind. But since I have to move up the ranks of my brother umpires, I can't say it. Silly in my mind.

If you'll read back through the post's in this thread you'll see that most of the board is in agreement on an acceptable mechanic for an uncaught third strike.

If the ball is caught cleanly for the third strike you should just verbally announce "out" loud enough for the batter and catcher to hear. What you shouldn't do is shout "batters out." Everybody in the stands knows the batter just struck out and a big verbal announcement is showing up the batter.

If the third strike is uncaught with first base unoccupied with less than two outs, then you should verbally announce "no catch, no catch."


Tim.