universal mechanic for strike three

[smoump]

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.

[Tim C]

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

[BigUmp56]

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.

[BigUmp56]

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

Tim.

[Tim C]

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

[mcrowder]

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!!!"

[smoump]

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).

[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

[mcrowder]

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.

[BigUmp56]

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.

[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

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]

[JJ]

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

[D-Man]

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

[DG]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by DG
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."