Dropped third strike

[JRutledge]

This is all great, but who cares what the pros teach. This was a Little League game and what is taught at the pro level is involving a much smaller number of people. I would not suggest you do anything the pros do unless you have confirmed this from the people you work for. Now this is just an opinion and you should feel free to do your own thing. The Eddings situation seemed to be caused by a signal that I have never seen used. I just know as a PU, I never say anything on a close play. I look for help from my partners (with a non-verbal signal) to tell me if the ball hit the ground or not. I have a catch. Not sure we are going to have video replay to review 100 times to see if the ball hit the ground or not.

Peace

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is all great, but who cares what the pros teach. This was a Little League game and what is taught at the pro level is involving a much smaller number of people. I would not suggest you do anything the pros do unless you have confirmed this from the people you work for. Now this is just an opinion and you should feel free to do your own thing. The Eddings situation seemed to be caused by a signal that I have never seen used. I just know as a PU, I never say anything on a close play. I look for help from my partners (with a non-verbal signal) to tell me if the ball hit the ground or not. I have a catch. Not sure we are going to have video replay to review 100 times to see if the ball hit the ground or not.

Peace

Jeff,

I could not disagree with you more. The mechanic is taught by both pro schools and every clinic I have attended.

The reasoning behind the mechanic is sound - ensure everyone is on the same page in regard to an uncaught third strike.

It's your choice, but I know for a fact that the NCAA region & super region umpires were evaluated on this mechanic in 2006.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is all great, but who cares what the pros teach. This was a Little League game and what is taught at the pro level is involving a much smaller number of people. I would not suggest you do anything the pros do unless you have confirmed this from the people you work for.

In our association, only pro school mechanics are taught, so we do the things the pros do, and we use the mechanics at every applicable level.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

Jeff,

I could not disagree with you more. The mechanic is taught by both pro schools and every clinic I have attended.

The reasoning behind the mechanic is sound - ensure everyone is on the same page in regard to an uncaught third strike.

It's your choice, but I know for a fact that the NCAA region & super region umpires were evaluated on this mechanic in 2006.

Is the mechanic in the book? If it is not in the book then you will have different points of view on this. Also when I talked to Minor League guys and fellow college guys, I did not ever hear of "one size fits all" mechanic with a ringing consensus. Now I am not disputing this was an issue on the NCAA playoff level, but I did not read anywhere where something was adopted across the board. Guys that work playoffs get a different set of directives sometimes than everyone else. Also, what works for NCAA does not necessarily apply for all other levels. I know in my state we do things differently than what is stated in the NF book on purpose. So what you just described might go completely out of the window if you are not working an NCAA game. I also know what happens in one conference can greatly be different from another conference. There is an NCAA conference that requires one of the base umpires to use an indicator along with the PU and you know how that subject gets thrown around here.

Peace

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is the mechanic in the book? If it is not in the book then you will have different points of view on this. Also when I talked to Minor League guys and fellow college guys, I did not ever hear of "one size fits all" mechanic with a ringing consensus. Now I am not disputing this was an issue on the NCAA playoff level, but I did not read anywhere where something was adopted across the board. Guys that work playoffs get a different set of directives sometimes than everyone else. Also, what works for NCAA does not necessarily apply for all other levels. I know in my state we do things differently than what is stated in the NF book on purpose. So what you just described might go completely out of the window if you are not working an NCAA game. I also know what happens in one conference can greatly be different from another conference. There is an NCAA conference that requires one of the base umpires to use an indicator along with the PU and you know how that subject gets thrown around here.

Peace

Jeff,

Agreed for the most part. However, many HS groups STILL use the outdated Fed mechanics.

PBUC is about ready to release a new Red Book (May be out now). Hopefully they have included more of the evaluation course mechanics into the book or will release them on the web site at some point. I would look for this to be updated in the 2007 or 2008 CCA guide (Tim C may have input on that).

Use what you want. I can tell you from experience that using this mechanic one should NEVER have a crew mechanic issue with an uncaught third strike. It works - why are you fighting it?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

Jeff,

Agreed for the most part. However, many HS groups STILL use the outdated Fed mechanics.

PBUC is about ready to release a new Red Book (May be out now). Hopefully they have included more of the evaluation course mechanics into the book or will release them on the web site at some point. I would look for this to be updated in the 2007 or 2008 CCA guide (Tim C may have input on that).

The state I live in uses many of their own mechanics outside of what the NF uses. Actually a lot of mechanics are NCAA mechanics to make things easier or simple. The powers that be made those decisions; I just do what I am told.

Originally Posted by socalblue1

Use what you want. I can tell you from experience that using this mechanic one should NEVER have a crew mechanic issue with an uncaught third strike. It works - why are you fighting it?

Once again you are coming at this from a different perspective than I am on this issue. I did not make the point because of what works, I am saying to you what I think because it might not fit everyone's conference or level they work. Who cares if it works if the powers that be do not give you assignments because you are using a "pro mechanic?" If you were a football official you would know that the SEC used certain mechanics for years (completely outside of the CCA Mechanics BTW). If you wanted to work in the SEC, you did what you were told or you sat at home. I would rather have a job using a mechanic that does not work as than sitting completely at home trying to use a mechanic that is perceived to be the best. So this is not about fighting anything, this is about what you suggested might not apply to every jurisdiction whether you or I like it or not. Also I do not know that it “works.” What you said I should not do has worked very well for me and the umpires I work with.

Peace

[mcrowder]

I just spoke with my friend in the Texas League - they do not use the mechanic you mention. Spoke with both of my assignors and they both recommended not using it at the NAIA or NCAA level until consensus is reached (which it has not yet - leading me to wonder about the comments on the Super-Regionals above), although one of the two suspects SOME uniform mechanic will be in place at NCAA level by next year and probably by NAIA either next year or soon.

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I just spoke with my friend in the Texas League - they do not use the mechanic you mention.

If your talking Texas League as in AA yes they do. In fact it's on the PU evaluation card. I lost a hard drive with an old e-mail from PBUC regarding this issue from right after the Eddings fiasco.

Spoke with both of my assignors and they both recommended not using it at the NAIA or NCAA level until consensus is reached (which it has not yet - leading me to wonder about the comments on the Super-Regionals above), although one of the two suspects SOME uniform mechanic will be in place at NCAA level by next year and probably by NAIA either next year or soon.

Simply repeating what was told to me by two umpires that did region/super region in 2006

See my comments regarding CCA mechanics book.

No real need to argue. IMO the real issue is that crews need to pre-game and use the same mechanic at all times there is or may be an uncaught third strike.

A close friend in AA is being evaluated this week. I will ask him to see if he can get clarification on enforcement accross all MiLB.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

You didn't give him the answer; you just said the PU signals strike and the BU "does his thing."

San Diego Steve is the one who, FINALLY, gave the kid an actual answer to his actual question.

Damn, Dave! What foul wind blew up your skirt? Man I was just having a little fun with the thread!

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

While not unsympathetic to those who express a reluctance to modify their "third strike uncaught" mechanics for fear it might hurt their chances of advancement due to the evaluation criteria of their association/league, I feel that the reluctance leaves an important issue "begging".

In those situations where a batter DOES become a runner on an uncaught third strike, I would suggest that the PLAYERS have a RIGHT to know whether or not the batter did, in fact, become a runner on the pitch. In my experience, in the majority of such situations, it is quite obvious to the players whether or not the third strike was caught and, therefore, whether or not the batter became a runner.

However, in a "significant minority" of such cases, it is NOT obvious to the players whether or not the third strike was legally caught. More to the point, it is not obvious to the players whether or not the umpire JUDGED that the third strike was caught - which is actually the more relevant question.

So, if there is the possibility of ambiguity as to whether or not the 3rd strike had been judged legally caught, and whether the batter had become a runner or not, it seems that the mechanics endorsed by Evans and others are clearly "better umpiring" in such situations. It seems to me that an umpire who chooses not to clarify the ambiguity through his use of inferior mechanics is derelict in his duty as an umpire. Does anyone disagree?

JM

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

So, if there is the possibility of ambiguity as to whether or not the 3rd strike had been judged legally caught, and whether the batter had become a runner or not, it seems that the mechanics endorsed by Evans and others are clearly "better umpiring" in such situations. It seems to me that an umpire who chooses not to clarify the ambiguity through his use of inferior mechanics is derelict in his duty as an umpire. Does anyone disagree?

JM

I think you are completely wrong. The players need to know the situation. The players need to act as they would without a call.

If we use your point of view on this, then anytime a dropped third strike happens, we should go out of our way to tell the player not to throw the ball around the diamond. For example, yelling over and over again that the batter is out on a caught third strike when the batter is not sure or is not by rule allowed to run (runner occupying first as an example). It is always easier to come back and make a call rather than make an uninformed call that is completely wrong then let the play go out. Players need to act always as if nothing is ever called.

Peace

[UmpJM]

Jeff,

While I would agree that the players' bear a responsibility for understanding the situation (and their coaches bear the responsibility of teaching them), I don't understand how the players can be held responsible for reading the umpire's mind.

For example, R2, 1 out, two strikes on the batter. Next pitch is a breaking ball that the batter takes a mighty swing at and misses. The catcher comes up with the ball, along with a mittful of dirt. The umpire indicates the strike and nothing else.

What play should the catcher make?

To make it interesting, the R2 got a good jump towards 3B and it's going to take a great throw to get him. The batter is a slow runner and is "easy meat" at 1B. The catcher "thinks" he caught the pitch before it touched the ground.

Is the batter out, or is he a runner? Should the catcher try to throw out the R3, or take the "sure out" at 1B?

Only the umpire knows for sure, and if he ain't tellin', NOBODY else does. Even when they DO know the situation.

On a "trouble ball" in the outfield, the umpire is going to clarify whether the ball was caught or trapped. The players need to know in order to know what play to make. Why should this be treated any differently?

JM

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Damn, Dave! What foul wind blew up your skirt? Man I was just having a little fun with the thread!

Sorry, missed the humor.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I won't take issue with this topic since Jim (SoCalBlue1) has already stated what I believe...use what you've been instructed to use, do it well and teach others.

I do have a problem with this statement:

Originally Posted by CoachJM

While I would agree that the players' bear a responsibility for understanding the situation (and their coaches bear the responsibility of teaching them), I don't understand how the players can be held responsible for reading the umpire's mind.

Most coaches teach their players to keep acting on the play until they hear otherwise. Foul balls, foul tips, missed bases, etc - they are all part of waiting for the appropriate call to be made. Don't you insist that a player keeps running until he hears an umpire yell foul? That runner on second should have his head down and be looking to score on a shot down the right field line...he's not waiting to read a mind. Sorry, but that just kind of irked me.

[UmpJM]

WWTB,

The situation I posed is materially different than waiting to hear if a batted ball is going to be ruled foul or not. In that case, there is no "better" thing to be doing, even if the ball eventually proves itself foul.

In the situation I posed, if the batter is already out, I want my catcher to take a shot at the R2 advancing to 3B. If the batter is not out and has become a runner, I want my catcher to take the "easy out" at 1B. I don't see why the umpire can't let everybody in on which it is. He's the only one who knows & he's not the only one with a legitimate reason to know.

I don't see any legitimate rationale for mechanics which keep this from the players when it's not obvious. I'm kind of "irked" by umpires who say "the players should know the situation" or "that's not how my evaluator does it".

MY players DO know the situation. They just don't know what YOU judged - because you didn't tell them and they can't read your mind. Maybe your evaluator should re-evaluate his mechanics.

JM