Hammer v. point on strike

[Dakota]

I've always favored the "hammer" v. the "point" on the strike signal, and not just because that is the mechanic I was taught (ASA, NFHS).

The "point" always seemed to be to be more show than effect, especially since it is typically a "turn and point", which with a one umpire game means the umpire takes his eyes off the playing field.

However, the Angels / CWS PU was apparently using a fairly complicated strike mechanic that included an arm extended plus a hammer. I didn't see the game; I'm only going on posted descriptions.

But, it has me wondering if maybe the baseball "point" mechanic is better for the strike signal, leaving the "hammer" for the actual out call.

It certainly would seem to have some advantage in the low pitch / strike 3 situation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

It certainly would seem to have some advantage in the low pitch / strike 3 situation.

How? The two main components in the play, B & C, aren't going to see it.

[whaddayouknow]

To me, hammer=softball and point=baseball, and not a hill of beans difference in benefits.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

How? The two main components in the play, B & C, aren't going to see it.

Base coaches, bench coaches, pitcher, infielders see it.

It just seems like it might be an improvement in general in umpire signals / communication to have a different signal for a strike v an out.

BTW, I finally saw a replay of the call last night. Sure looked to me like PU was signalling OUT, not just strike 3. This impression was due mainly to his arm extended motion first, so it looked like the hammer was a second signal meaning "batter out."

[Dakota]

Originally posted by whaddayouknow
To me, hammer=softball and point=baseball, and not a hill of beans difference in benefits.

"point" is also used in LL softball.

My thought was "hammer" = "out" and "point" = "strike."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

"point" is also used in LL softball.

My thought was "hammer" = "out" and "point" = "strike."

Which is based on baseball umpiring, not softball.

As explained last night on Fox Sports, the right arm sweeping out is an indicator for a swing, not strike. Even on a swinging third strike, some umpires still put a little more emphasis in their signal.

If Eddings (?) did believe the ball was caught, why didn't he simply say so? Who cares if the runner took off for 1B? That is a much easier sell than it not being an out.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota

"point" is also used in LL softball.

My thought was "hammer" = "out" and "point" = "strike."

Hammer = strike
Hammer = out
Point = swing

One good reason for not differentiating D3K call, is that PU cannot always tell if ball touched the ground or not.

If the mechanics required PU to call "Strike Three Batter Is Out", it could create even more confusion in situations certain situations than we have now.

Example: B1 swings at strike three low and away, F2 drops to knees and catches ball before ball touches ground. PU is blocked from view and could not tell whether the ball touched the ground before entering the catcher's mitt. We know it is Strike Three, but can't guess the out, so we have a non-call.

Once players become dependent on the call, the non-call could invite an argument from the offense on a caught third strike with a non-call. OR it would require PU go guess the out.

With the current system, the non-call puts the onus on the players to get it right. And, if the batter runs, there is always the opportunity for PU to confer with BU for help on whether the ball touched the ground or not - after the fact.

[gsf23]

I think Eddings brought this all on himself and the tell you the truth, I’m not at all sure that Eddings just didn’t boot the call.

One of the local sports programs here had a great piece on this situation. They showed all of the swinging strikeouts from the game. In all the swinging strikes that were caught, Eddings pointed then gave the hammer signal. They then showed three dropped third strikes calls from that game prior to the ninth. In all three, Eddings pointed, but did not give the hammer until after the catcher tagged the batter.

Now if we judge Eddings by what he had done all game, then his signal was consistent with what he signaled all game for a caught third strike and the Angels had a legitimate beef.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by tcannizzo

Hammer = strike
Hammer = out
Point = swing

One good reason for not differentiating D3K call, is that PU cannot always tell if ball touched the ground or not.

If the mechanics required PU to call "Strike Three Batter Is Out", it could create even more confusion in situations certain situations than we have now.

Example: B1 swings at strike three low and away, F2 drops to knees and catches ball before ball touches ground. PU is blocked from view and could not tell whether the ball touched the ground before entering the catcher's mitt. We know it is Strike Three, but can't guess the out, so we have a non-call.

Once players become dependent on the call, the non-call could invite an argument from the offense on a caught third strike with a non-call. OR it would require PU go guess the out.

With the current system, the non-call puts the onus on the players to get it right. And, if the batter runs, there is always the opportunity for PU to confer with BU for help on whether the ball touched the ground or not - after the fact.

I disagree, because the defense deserves an IMMEDIATE call from the PU for decision making purposes.

If the winning run was at 3rd, don't you think it would be important for the catcher to know if the batter was out or not? Or, are you suggesting that the umpire should make a "no call" and wait and see what happens?

I think you're setting yourself up for and absolute sh*t storm should you do that in a critical situation. And this is why Doug Eddings is taking so much heat. He had probably been calling swinging 3rd strikes like that for a very long time and nobody either cared nor did it ever matter very much. But this time it blew up in his face in a League Championship Series with millions of people watching and cameras catching the action from every possible angle.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[tcannizzo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling
I disagree, because the defense deserves an IMMEDIATE call from the PU for decision making purposes.

If the winning run was at 3rd, don't you think it would be important for the catcher to know if the batter was out or not? Or, are you suggesting that the umpire should make a "no call" and wait and see what happens?


Phooey! Don't you think it would be equally important for the offense to know also?

I think you're setting yourself up for and absolute sh*t storm should you do that in a critical situation. And this is why Doug Eddings is taking so much heat. He had probably been calling swinging 3rd strikes like that for a very long time and nobody either cared nor did it ever matter very much. But this time it blew up in his face in a League Championship Series with millions of people watching and cameras catching the action from every possible angle.


The only thing that made that situation critical was the defense screwing up.

[David Emerling]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tcannizzo

Originally posted by David Emerling
I disagree, because the defense deserves an IMMEDIATE call from the PU for decision making purposes.

If the winning run was at 3rd, don't you think it would be important for the catcher to know if the batter was out or not? Or, are you suggesting that the umpire should make a "no call" and wait and see what happens?


Phooey! Don't you think it would be equally important for the offense to know also?

I think you're setting yourself up for and absolute sh*t storm should you do that in a critical situation. And this is why Doug Eddings is taking so much heat. He had probably been calling swinging 3rd strikes like that for a very long time and nobody either cared nor did it ever matter very much. But this time it blew up in his face in a League Championship Series with millions of people watching and cameras catching the action from every possible angle.


The only thing that made that situation critical was the defense screwing up.

No, I *don't* think it would be "equally important" for the offense to know the answer to that question. Whatever the umpire may rule, the runner from 3rd is *not* going to attempt to advance home if the catcher does *not* throw it to 1st. It really doesn't matter what the umpire rules. From the runner's perspective, the *only* thing that matters is if the catcher throws the ball or not.

To the runner, it's completely academic as to whether the catcher NEEDED to throw it or not, regardless of the umpire's ruling. For that matter, it's completely academic as far as the batter is concerned. I've seen many batters who always take off running toward first after a swinging third strike. They play every third strike as if it was dropped. It doesn't cost anything. That's not true for the defense, however. Throwing unnecessarily could be quite costly.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:05 AM]

[tcannizzo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling

Originally posted by tcannizzo

No, I *don't* think it would be "equally important" for the offense to know the answer to that question. Whatever the umpire may rule, the runner from 3rd is *not* going to attempt to advance home if the catcher does *not* throw it to 1st. It really doesn't matter what the umpire rules. From the runner's perspective, the *only* thing that matters is if the catcher throws the ball or not.

To the runner, it's completely academic as to whether the catcher NEEDED to throw it or not, regardless of the umpire's ruling. For that matter, it's completely academic as far as the batter is concerned. I've seen many batters who always take off running toward first after a swinging third strike. They play every third strike as if it was dropped. It doesn't cost anything. That's not true for the defense, however. Throwing unnecessarily could be quite costly.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:05 AM]

Last time I checked, the batter is part of the offense. The catcher would only throw to first if the batter was running. The catcher knows whether the ball touched the ground or not. The catcher also knows that when in doubt tag the runner anyway.

If anyone is at a disadvantage on a non-call it is the offense. But then even the batter knows that if the pitch is low, that they can't take a chance and will run anyway.

In last night's World Series, there was a non-call on a dropped third strike and no one is up in arms about it this morning.

Plain and simple, the defense screwed up by leaving the field.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I seem to remember 40+ years ago being told that on any 3rd strike, if the ball was near the ground to tag the batter regardless of the situation. I was also told as a batter that with two strikes, always start toward first on a third strike.

Even the batter noted that he was expecting to be tagged. When he wasn't and didn't hear "out", he ran.

There are plenty of people that have one opinion or another on the proper mechanic. The one thing that seems obvious is that if the players followed the advice many of us were offered in youth ball, this wouldn't have ever become an issue.

[argodad]

My DD took one look at the replay and said, "Tag him. NEVER leave it in the hands of the umpire!"

[David Emerling]

As we all know, under ideal conditions it is not too critical to make a call on plays such as these because the players always tend to "fix" the issue and render it moot.

One of two things generally happen on a swinging strike three where the pitch is low and there is some question as to whether the catcher caught the ball in the air or it short-hopped into his glove:

1.) The catcher slaps an immediate tag on the batter, or

2.) The batter shows indifference and simply walks back into his dugout

Umpires often get lulled into the presumption that this is a no-call situation, especially umpires who call at higher levels because the players know the routine all too well.

The players are so good at handling this issue it hardly even matters whether the umpire makes a call or is even correct in whatever he views of the situation, i.e. caught or uncaught pitch.

I'm sure we all recognized the cavalier manner in which Doug Eddings called the third struck on Piercynzki. Eddings slipped into his "no-call" mode and then, like a lightning bolt out of the blue, the play exploded in his face complicated by TWO issues ...

1.) The catcher did *not* place a tag on the batter, and

2.) The batter initially took a step away (indicating his indifference) and then, suddenly, took off toward first.

Eddings was then FORCED to make a ruling. He could no longer rely on the usual mechanisms that cause this type of activity to be improbable. It was happening! And it was happening during a League Championship game ... a game that mattered greatly ... that was being watched by millions of viewers ... and would be scrutinized by many camera angles.

He had to choose. Was the pitch caught or not?

He chose ... NOT.

Quite frankly, I think he flipped a coin on the matter because I don't think there was any way he could have made that fine discernment and, besides, I don't even think he saw it at all.

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

The whole mess stemmed from three simulataneous issues ...

1.) The runner took off running on a ball that was CLEANLY caught by the catcher (notice I didn't say that he necessarily caught it in-flight). Normally, if the ball does not escape the catcher, the batter doesn't even bother. Piercynzki DID run, however.

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. The DEFAULT call on a play like that (one you don't see) is that the batter is OUT and that the ball was CAUGHT. It is a much more egregious error to be wrong in the direction Eddings took than to be wrong in the other direction. Had Eddings removed Piercynzki from 1st base and replays subsequently showed that the catcher had actually short-hopped the ball, most people would have shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, after all, Piercynzki *did* strike out."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 03:40 PM]