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?

[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.