in situation A, where i believe the ball is caught, i am coming up with an agressive fist. i will also verbalize 'out', but not 'batters out'. by agressively signaling the fist, pumping it a few times and verbalizing the out, everyone *should* get that the batter is now out. this somewhat normal, nothing new here, never had a problem.

now in situation B, i will take a step out and point at the BR (left hand) and come up with a regular old fist (not the agressive multiple timed fist from before where we have an out). this signifies that yes he swung, yes it is a strike. i will then verbalize "no catch" a couple of times. since this is the situation where i feel that the ball isnt caught; i feel that i have signaled that we have a strike on the batter, which is the third, and i have stepped out and verbalized that i do not have a catch. some have used the safe mechanic here adding to the "no catch" verbalization, but i havent tried that myself.

that may or may not work for everyone and where they work. it might not even be acceptable to some, and hell it might not even be acceptable to my evaluators (when the time comes). i have not found trouble with it, and have not found any partners to oppose my stance on it. i am definitely open to becoming better at any aspect of umpiring, but i dont feel that i need to look away from the hammer. some things on third strikes might change, but at the moment im alright.

[Edited by briancurtin on Mar 9th, 2006 at 11:49 PM]

one more thing: eddings admits that he should have verbalized in that one situation, being either "no catch" or "hes out". he didnt say anything, which lead to at least some of the confusion i think. you may have read this, but he talks about his lack of verbalization here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playof...C-DT9705204233

Thanks for the link to the article.

I remember being very interested in this controversy because of my preference to use the hammer.

In the photo on the link you provided, you will notice that Eddings has his arm parallel to the ground. That is NOT his usual strike call and it is completely unclear what that signal means. The next thing he does is give a hammer.

To the untrained eye, it seemed like the FIRST signal was a strike call and the SECOND signal was an *out* call. If the second signal was not an out call, it calls into question what the FIRST signal was supposed to mean.

As I remember the play, there was no question that Pierzynski swung at the pitch. It was far from a checked swing.

The fact remains, "hammer guys" simply must put more thought into this situation because of the natural confusion with the strike signal being the same as an out signal.

Pointer guys have no problem:

They point for a strike. There can be absolutely no confusion that this is anything other than strike call, and nothing more.

If the umpire is convinced the ball was uncaught, then there is nothing more to do. He has signaled a strike ... has *not* signaled an out ... and the players are now responsible for the situation. They have all the information they need.

If the umpire is convinced the ball was caught, then he follows his strike mechanic (i.e. point) with a hammer, a unversally understood and recognzied signal for an OUT. No confusion.

It just seems easier to me.

I've always been a hammer guy because THAT seems to be the way most manuals and clinics teach it. But I can now see that there is a certain flaw with the fact that a strike and out signal are identical.

99 percent of the time it doesn't matter. The play that Eddings got caught up highlights the flaw.

Notice, at the end of the article, that they say that there is NO REQUIREMENT for the umpire to say "no catch." But a hammer guy is just about FORCED to say something since he has no signal to differentiate from a simple strike and a out.

I understand your mechanic, however, and I think it would work.

I'm still debating myself on this matter.

I just called a Varsity practice game the other day and used the point for the first time in many years. I felt very comfortable with it.

But I'm still conflicted.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Dave,
I feel the same way you do. I have always pointed strikes and hammered outs. Even before the Eddings incident, it just didn't seem smart to me to have the same visual signal for two different calls.

When you point a strike, there is no way to get screwed on that call. If there is any uncertainty about an out, a subsequent hammer clears away any confusion.

On a check swing hammer strike, one has to make sure that the signals given are interpreted correctly by the emphasis given or sequence of signal. The hammer can and does work, but the potential for error and confusion is also there. I'd rather adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle and save myself any explanations about how my hammer was really just a strike and not really an out.

Personally, I think nice point for a strike looks better. IMHO.

Re: Re: Thanks....
 

It's fairly standard here to call your partners for the week on Sunday night to discuss logistics. If who does what has not been established then do it then so you will know. So in your example, if I arrive 30 minutes to game time and my partner has the plate I am dressing for bases. If he does not show by 15 minutes to game time I will start to change and get serious about it at 12 minutes to game time. If he shows after I am dressed for plate, I am working plate. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Unfortunately, there are umpires who deliberately show up late so they won't have to work the plate. I prefer the plate, so it doesn't bother me - it just tells me something about my partner.
I always tell new umpires to work the plate - you see the whole game, you're involved in it actively, and you get to make decisions on nearly every pitch.

JJ

PS I point and hammer, and have forever.