dropped 3rd strike

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The batter needs to know too. Should the catcher tell him?

And BTW, the catcher doesn't always know. And maybe the umpire didn't see it the same way.

Why call balls and strikes - the catcher and batter should know.

Hmmm. I see 11 year old's running on 3rd strikes anywhere near the ground. I see 11 year old catchers tagging batters even AFTER a catch, on anything close... Is this a skill somehow lost when one enrolls in college?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Similar to the school of thought in some rule sets that says the OT and DT should "know" it is an IFF

Tomato tomaahto... you say school of thought, I say rule. Same thing, right? This is not a "school of thought".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by larry1953

steve, i don't think.

fify

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LMan

You verbalize a 'yerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrout!' on a swinging strike 3?

If there's any doubt at all, I either say "catch" or "no catch" (or maybe "ball's on the ground") so the batter and catcher can tell.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Curious, but wouldn't the umpire's opinion be at least hinted at by the lack of a verbal "out" call?

Snaqs, the proper mechanic is not to verbalize "out" on a swinging strike 3. The reason is that if the pitch is not legally caught, the batter is not in fact out: he becomes a runner and may try for 1B (unless 1B is occupied w/ less than 2 outs).

So the absence of a verbal "out" would not signal that the batter may run. However, the proper mechanic is to verbalize "no catch!" which could signal the batter to run.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Hmmm. I see 11 year old's running on 3rd strikes anywhere near the ground. I see 11 year old catchers tagging batters even AFTER a catch, on anything close... Is this a skill somehow lost when one enrolls in college?

The outcome is dependent on the umpire's call, therefore there has to be a call. Really simple.

Why are so many denying that a call is necessary and/or that it's OK to not make one because the players should know? Why should they know the outcome of this call more than that of any other call?

Even Jim Evans reportedly said there has to be a verbal call because the two guys that need to know have their backs to the umpire. That's the basis of the revised mechanics - which someone should have been smart enough to realize was necessary in the first place.

It's amazing that so many folks realized the necessity of verbalizing it after the Eddings play, but let one of the bretheren goof it up and suddenly the onus is back on the players.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It's amazing that so many folks realized the necessity of verbalizing it after the Eddings play, but let one of the bretheren goof it up and suddenly the onus is back on the players.

As I read it, most ARE agreeing that the umpiring could have been better in the OP AND are ALSO adding that the player's actions could also have been better.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If there's any doubt at all, I either say "catch" or "no catch" (or maybe "ball's on the ground") so the batter and catcher can tell.

I don't see a need to verbalize those things. Your strike call is already verbal, followed by a safe signal to illustrate that the requirement for an out was not completed.

"Catch" and "No catch" sound similar to those wearing helmets. Telling a batter that the ball is on the ground is helping him. His team and coaches will do that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I don't see a need to verbalize those things. Your strike call is already verbal, followed by a safe signal to illustrate that the requirement for an out was not completed.

"Catch" and "No catch" sound similar to those wearing helmets. Telling a batter that the ball is on the ground is helping him. His team and coaches will do that.

My strike call isn't verbal on a swing, but you're correct that the "not yet out" verbal is accompanied by a safe signal.

I'm telling both players, not just the batter, that the ball is (or isn't) on the ground.

We do this when there's a close catch in the outfield -- why wouldn't we do this at the plate when they can't see the signals?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My strike call isn't verbal on a swing, but you're correct that the "not yet out" verbal is accompanied by a safe signal.

I'm telling both players, not just the batter, that the ball is (or isn't) on the ground.

We do this when there's a close catch in the outfield -- why wouldn't we do this at the plate when they can't see the signals?

Bob,
You are confusing the two mechanics. We do not tell the players that a ball is uncaught in the outfield (I prefer "Ball Down" to "No Catch" for the aformentioned reasons). I am alerting my partners to responsibilities on the play. I could care less about the players. That is why they have coaches.

I was envisioning a half swing strike, D3K rather than a full swing. You are correct about not verbalizing a standard swing and miss. However, I prefer to point and announce "Swing" to indicate the strike on a half swing miss. If the ball is uncaught, the safe signal goes out and all know, or should know, that the ball was not caught. I have never been to a game where a D3K didn't elicit "RUN!" by coaches, teammates and fans. If the batter doesn't know, too bad. The catcher knows if they caught it or not. If the catcher has any doubt, they are taught to tag the BR. I coached U11 this year and all the players we have and saw did this. I didn't see an issue with it this year at HS or college ball either.

I see a player swinging for the fences, missing and dejectedly walking away only to hear you say "Ball's on the ground." The catcher can't find it and the player now reacts to your prompting to safely reach the base. That could get ugly quick.

You know the umpire in question, so no names. In a state playoff game a decade or so ago, he was working 1B in a 3 man. The SS misplayed one deep in the hole and stupidly threw a late toss to first. The runner had just crossed the bag when the umpire said, "Ball's away, ball's away." as the throw skidded under the glove of the fielder. The kid took off for second and was gunned down a half step short. The kid's coaches went ballistic about his verbalization. He had to eat it because he knew he was wrong. No ejections, the out stood. He hasn't had a big game in a long time but still claims he was simply alerting us that the ball was uncaught.

[bob jenkins]

It's been discussed ad nauseum over the past several years. I'll stick with my (and it's not just mine) mechanic. And, the play at first (at least that specific play) is different.

[MikeStrybel]

I never said you shouldn't. I simply pointed out the folly of helping a player rather than just making the call. Stick with what serves you best.

Yes, the play at first was different. Unless we are discussing the same play, all references to similar mechanics fall into that category. It happens all of the time here.

[UmpJM]

MikeStrybel,

The problem with the visual/physical mechanic only regarding your judgement of whether or not the catcher legally caught the pitch is that the two people with the most urgent need to know, the batter (-runner) and catcher, can't see your mechanic.

I use what Bob J. and Jim Evans suggest, both a physical and verbal mechanic:

If the catcher does not legally catch the ball, the umpire should signal the strike and then indicate physically and verbally tha the ball was not legally secured. By pointing to the ground and verbally stating "Ball's on the ground!" or "No catch!", the umpire is giving the batter a fair chance to advance and, also, informing the catcher that he may have other obligations to fulfill in order to retire the batter. - Jim Evans, Maximizing the Two_Umpire System

Were a coach come out to complain about my mechanics, I'd laugh in his f... I mean, thank him for his input and send him back to the dugout.

The catcher may know whether or not he caught the pitch, but he has no idea whether you JUDGED he caught it unless you let him know.

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

MikeStrybel,

The problem with the visual/physical mechanic only regarding your judgement of whether or not the catcher legally caught the pitch is that the two people with the most urgent need to know, the batter (-runner) and catcher, can't see your mechanic.

I use what Bob J. and Jim Evans suggest, both a physical and verbal mechanic:



Were a coach come out to complain about my mechanics, I'd laugh in his f... I mean, thank him for his input and send him back to the dugout.

The catcher may know whether or not he caught the pitch, but he has no idea whether you JUDGED he caught it unless you let him know.

JM

Three decades later and never had a catcher that didn't know how to turn his head if he had a doubt. I have seen a few coaches get angry at umpires who alert runners to D3K though. Dance with who brought you, J. I hope all is well.

[Rich]

My verbal is simply, "NO! NO!" Never caused a problem. F2's not seeing the safe signal and why should he turn around and delay from making a play?

I agree with Bob -- stick with what brought you.