dropped 3rd strike

[BigUmp56]

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.

Your ridiculous comment about balls and strikes aside, Rich..............

I'm not saying that the umpires didn't screw the pooch here with their poor mechanics, but I am saying that you can't put all the blame on them. Don't give me this nonsense about the batter either. Apparently he figured it out quickly enough to be standing on first, now didn't he. I played catcher from the age of 8, and continued into my mid thirties, Rich. Your comment that the catcher doesn't always know if he's fielded the ball cleanly is complete BS. He's the only one on the field, in many cases, that is 100% sure whether he fielded it cleanly or not. Time for your daily cheese dose......

Tim.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Your comment that the catcher doesn't always know if he's fielded the ball cleanly is complete BS. He's the only one on the field, in many cases, that is 100% sure whether he fielded it cleanly or not.
Tim.

So you're saying sometimes he doesn't know. Thanks. That was my point.


And the real question is what is the umpires opinion. It is the only one that matters, so the umpire should be obligated to let everyone know what it is.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So you're saying sometimes he doesn't know. Thanks. That was my point.


And the real question is what is the umpires opinion. It is the only one that matters, so the umpire should be obligated to let everyone know what it is.

I didn't want to speak in absolutes. There's always going to be a coach too dumb to teach his catchers what to do, or a catcher too dumb to know whether he's caught a ball or not.

Tim.

[Larry1953]

If the bat had touched the ball in a potential foul tip situation, the crew would be required to make a definitive call as to whether the catcher properly caught the ball for an out. Why should it be any different if the bat does not touch the ball? Perhaps crews have come to rely on the "automatic tag" by the catcher and overlook the need for a prompt call. It would seem "Strike three, no catch" would be the fairest thing for both the catcher and the batter to hear.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So you're saying sometimes he doesn't know. Thanks. That was my point.


And the real question is what is the umpires opinion. It is the only one that matters, so the umpire should be obligated to let everyone know what it is.

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

[Larry1953]

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?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't some rule sets say that the infield fly still applies even if the crew does not give the verbal call. If so, that doesn't seem proper at all - how are the teams supposed to know if the crew has judged it not to be ordinary effort or just forgot to call it. The "non-call" sounds exactly the same in both cases.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't all rule sets say that the infield fly still applies even if the crew does not give the verbal call?

Fixed your post.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Fixed your post.

Steve, I don't think all rule sets are the same for an uncalled IFF. NCAA and FED "expect" the players to recognize an IFF even if it is not called. In OBR, it is not an IFF if it is not called. According to J/R, the play stands but a DP which might result should be negated. I suppose the main difference is that im OBR the B/R would be safe at first. The problem with the other interpretation is that it is unclear if a force or tag is required if the ball drops.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by larry1953

steve, i don't think.

fify

[LMan]

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?

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

[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.

[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?

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

1) strike calls on swinging strikes are not "already verbal" they are arm signaled only.

2) if anything is verbalized, it would be "no catch." "Catch" would never be verbalized. No Catch only sounds like Catch if the umpire mumbles it under his breath instead of sounding off.

3) why is verbalizing "no catch" any different as far as "helping" than a safe signal? Are we only showing the eight defensive players (who can see it for themselves) that the ball wasn't caught, and the batter and catcher just stand there like idiots?

And yes, Rich, some of the onus IS on the players. After all, they are supposed to be paying attention to the game, and know that when strike 3 has a chance of being uncaught, that as a batter they run and as a catcher they apply a tag. Simple as that. This should take place at about the same time as the umpire is signaling.

The problem is that coaches would rather put the onus on the umpire exclusively, and absolve themselves of having to actually coach their players.

[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.