Hammer v. point on strike

[Dakota]

Originally posted by David Emerling
I don't think the problems that arose from the incident had anything to do with any of Eddings' mechanics.

2.) The catcher didn't go through the routine of tagging the batter....

3.) And, finally, Eddings picked the wrong side of the coin when guessing....

For what it's worth, I fundamentally agree with David's analysis. I have these comments:

While the problem did not arise from his mechanics, his mechanics significantly contributed to the controversy, and his mechanics were at the focus of much of the umpire talk.

To have signaled "swing" followed a considerable time later by the hammer certainly looks like he is calling the batter out. Well, he didn't call the batter out (or perhaps reversed himself). Hence, the controversy about his mechanics.

I agree with the three events you describe, but I go so far as to say that if any "fault" is to be placed on the OUTCOME of the play, the fault lies with the catcher. Not the umpire. Not the batter.

OTOH, the umpire could have prevented all the ruckus with the opposite call OR by not giving the hammer signal prior to calling the U3K.