Drop 3rd strike mechanic

[BretMan]

Maybe the question is this: On a non-swinging, uncaught third strike, should the umpire signal the strike as he might any other called third strike (pull the ripcord, extra emphasis, etc.) or give the usual hammer that he would on a called strike one or two?

(At least, I think that is the question. )

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Newest NCAA mechanic is signal safe; has any other association suggested any signal for a batter-runner that has not been put out, nor has an out been attempted yet??

Yes. Major League Baseball!

[roadking]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Maybe the question is this: On a non-swinging, uncaught third strike, should the umpire signal the strike as he might any other called third strike (pull the ripcord, extra emphasis, etc.) or give the usual hammer that he would on a called strike one or two?

(At least, I think that is the question. )



Yes. Major League Baseball!

Bretman you are correct with your interpatation of what I was trying to say. Im sure I know the answer to my own question, but in some past lower level games, Ive a been a little quick to punch the batter out only to realize the catcher has dropped the ball. Other than the NCAA new mechanic, I was wonder how others convey to younger players that was the third strike.

[BretMan]

I don't know if this is the "official", or "documented" or "prefered" mechanic, but...

If it's a called third strike, I give the same exact signal I give on any other called third strike- whether the ball is caught or not. I stand up, "pull the rip cord" and say, "Strike three!". I never add, "The batter is out" as part of my third strike call (unless first is occupied with less than two outs and the batter starts to run, in which case she really is out).

So, I'm not really "calling the batter out". I'm just calling the strike like I normally would. The ball being caught or not and the batter-runner advancing to first is a separate element of the play that is up to the players to figure out on their own.

[AtlUmpSteve]

With that clarification, I agree with Bret. It is still a called third strike, so doing something different than a caught third strike is (to me) the same as changing a signal when a base is missed. Your emphatic third strike signal only makes it a called third strike; it is up to the teams to determine if the batter is out based on the rules, not based on an umpire directing their play.

We all need to realize that the NCAA coaches have significant influence on the NCAA rules and even NCAA umpire mechanics; and that many of them firmly believe and want that the umpires should have no judgment available on issues the coaches don't grasp, and announce and indicate all situations so the coaches know how to react. They have systematically changed items that require them to understand the game and make judgments.

Rules examples; 1) signal and announce "no tag" when runner misses home and catcher misses the tag, 2) batter not pulling the bat back from squaring to bunt becomes a strike without an attempt. You could add the pressure and influence on ASA and other organizations to match their pitching distance (43') because they didn't want to have to actually make a judgment if a pitcher could successfully adjust from 40' to 43', and to allow steel cleats so they weren't the first step in that use (meaning they might be held liable for failing to properly teach/coach a player on the safe use). Mechanics examples; 1) using the safe signal to indicate "no call" when no call always has meant "no call", 2) declaring "batter is out" when batter is not a batter-runner on a dropped third strike (rather than teaching their catchers which play to make in a given situation), 3) base umpires on the line to indicate "catch" or "no catch", and now 4) the plate umpire to up the ante by adding a superfluous (IMHO) "no catch" safe signal.

This may be what the NCAA coaches want, to reduce the umpires to signal machines for their benefit, and to eliminate as much judgment as possible. That doesn't mean all these are good for the game of softball, or necessarily good mechanics.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...

We all need to realize that the NCAA coaches have significant influence on the NCAA rules and even NCAA umpire mechanics; and that many of them firmly believe and want that the umpires should have no judgment available on issues the coaches don't grasp, and announce and indicate all situations so the coaches know how to react. They have systematically changed items that require them to understand the game and make judgments.

Rules examples; 1) signal and announce "no tag" when runner misses home and catcher misses the tag, 2) batter not pulling the bat back from squaring to bunt becomes a strike without an attempt. You could add the pressure and influence on ASA and other organizations to match their pitching distance (43') because they didn't want to have to actually make a judgment if a pitcher could successfully adjust from 40' to 43', and to allow steel cleats so they weren't the first step in that use (meaning they might be held liable for failing to properly teach/coach a player on the safe use). Mechanics examples; 1) using the safe signal to indicate "no call" when no call always has meant "no call", 2) declaring "batter is out" when batter is not a batter-runner on a dropped third strike (rather than teaching their catchers which play to make in a given situation), 3) base umpires on the line to indicate "catch" or "no catch", and now 4) the plate umpire to up the ante by adding a superfluous (IMHO) "no catch" safe signal.

This may be what the NCAA coaches want, to reduce the umpires to signal machines for their benefit, and to eliminate as much judgment as possible. That doesn't mean all these are good for the game of softball, or necessarily good mechanics.

Steve, I think you applying the coaches' influence on rule into mechanics unjustly. I'm going to use a bit of speculation with what I'm about to say (as I'm not sure what is discussed at the coaches' meeting about mechanics). I don't think the coaches really know what we are signaling most of the time. Think about this: how many actually see us call a delayed deal ball on an obstruction or catcher's obstruction?

In reference to your numbers above:
(Rules)
1) This is an age old problem at all levels of softball. What is the difference between saying "no tag" to "delaying slightly"?
2) This is just a definition of a swing, that having the bat in the zone. I don't think this was to reduce our judgment; maybe this had to do with wanting catchers a better shot at a steal of second?
(mechanics)
1) My guess is the "no infraction" came from a someone in the umpire ranks rather than coaches. I'm thinking somewhere in the west
Personally, I like it and wish other organizations would adopt it.
2)This came as a result of the MLB play in the playoffs. It was implemented the following year. You only use this when necessary, because you are declaring a rule.
3) the D3K signal coaches rarely see. I personally like this mechanic, and it has become useful ways other than intended. For example, I had, what looked to me as PU, a foul tip (with two strikes). But before I signaled/ruled, I looked up to my BU who was pointed down (defensive coach wasn't happy). Another play where this could have been used was runner on second, two strikes and check swing on a ball in the dirt (less than two outs). I didn't have a swing, but my BU did. He gives me a point, and the situation works out better than it did (bottom 8, one run game, conference championship, regional berth on the line). I've also had an instance in an ASA national MFP where a batter scored on a D3K and this signal would have been very useful.
Again, I like this and wish other organizations would adopt it (even suggested it to my regional UIC).
4) Not sure where or how this change came about, but if from a coach, he or she must have been really burned by it. Most confusing because there was not some big D3K that everyone saw.

In conclusion, I think the coaches, as a group, are not aware of what we do or why we do it (yes, there are exceptions). For example, how many coaches are confused as to why we check swing to the U on the line? Don't you think coaches would change that (if they could change anything)?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

In conclusion, I think the coaches, as a group, are not aware of what we do or why we do it (yes, there are exceptions).

Many are not; absolutely true. The exceptions, however, tend to be the influential ones, that serve on Rules Committees, that are listened to by those that do serve. I have heard this "influence" from the mouth of the umpire out west of whom I believe you refer.

There may be some items in my list that were not influenced by the coaches. And some of these are, I agree, helpful at times. I don't want to debate the legitimacy of each item, but if they were all "no-brainers", then all other versions of softball rules and mechanics would adopt them!! That they may be helpful doesn't lessen the substantial influence the coaches have on the NCAA game. I seriously doubt that any coach or group of coaches has a similar affect to the rules or the umpire mechanics of any other association.

We will know more clearly when the next rules change cycle tells us if they eliminate illegal pitch rules instead of continuing to support enforcement.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...We will know more clearly when the next rules change cycle tells us if they eliminate illegal pitch rules instead of continuing to support enforcement.

They only support enforcement of the illegal pitch rules on the other teams pitcher!

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There may be some items in my list that were not influenced by the coaches. And some of these are, I agree, helpful at times. I don't want to debate the legitimacy of each item, but if they were all "no-brainers", then all other versions of softball rules and mechanics would adopt them!!

This is not necessarily the case. From a brief perusal of the board, it appears that you are an ASA adherent, which is fine. I myself swore by them for years. I have recently come to the realization, after working my last few nationals and having conversations with some of my acquaintances on the national staff, state UIC, going to clinics, etc, that for some reason they are very scared and reluctant to change.

Their mechanics options, compared to what the NCAA now offers, are almost becoming a joke, to the point that this will be the first time in my 15 years as an umpire that I won't be registering with them and I fail to see why people put up with their restrictions in terms of what umpires can do on the field.

As has been noted in another post, virtually every mechanics change you pointed out that the NCAA has adopted is actually a good and beneficial change. The exception is this new "safe" declaration on a dropped 3rd strike. That seems like some serious overkill and I will be interested to view the online rules clinic video and see it discussed.

As to the original poster in this thread, don't over-think the situation. The most important, and really only information, that needs to be conveyed, is that the pitch was in fact "Strike 3." How you go about reporting that information is of little consequence. Don't worry about "tipping your hand." The players involved are responsible for recognizing the situation and acting accordingly. It is highly unlikely that any minor vocal inflections are going to be noticed by players in the heat of competition, especially if they didn't already realize that the situation dictated that the runner should run and the catcher should make a throw.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

With that clarification, I agree with Bret. It is still a called third strike, so doing something different than a caught third strike is (to me) the same as changing a signal when a base is missed. Your emphatic third strike signal only makes it a called third strike; it is up to the teams to determine if the batter is out based on the rules, not based on an umpire directing their play.

So I don't tend to sell a dropped third strike and this isn't enough to convince me I should. I'm going to be tipping the result anyway, because my mask is off and I'm moving away from home plate. How is it more of a tip if I just call strike three than do that?
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

So I don't tend to sell a dropped third strike and this isn't enough to convince me I should. I'm going to be tipping the result anyway, because my mask is off and I'm moving away from home plate. How is it more of a tip if I just call strike three than do that?

Mask off and moving away from the plate is generally not seen by the two most affected players; batter and catcher. Signal difference not seen either, but the verbal difference on a called strike three would be an early warning system, I would think. Even to the coaches that don't know our signals.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Mask off and moving away from the plate is generally not seen by the two most affected players; batter and catcher.

Which is why I believe the mechanic inane. This is a knee-jerk reaction the MLB used when they had an incident a couple years ago, but even with that signal, the same play would have occurred. And, yes, it is a mechanic driven by the management side of the foul line. Even 10U catchers know to throw to 1B if there is a question and they see the B/BR heading to 1B when that avenue is available.

And, again, the BR is NOT safe, just not put out. IOW, the BR is in jeopardy and that is not safe.

Signal difference not seen either, but the verbal difference on a called strike three would be an early warning system, I would think. Even to the coaches that don't know our signals.

In FP I used the same signal for every strike, which is why I previously noted strike/out. Same signal, but for a third strike, it is the inflection of my voice that differentiates that call.