How to "Call" a ball not caught

Tim C

I guess I am confused:

Why didn't you give a safe sign and voice, "No Catch."

Maybe others here will correct me.

Shmuelg

hmmmm . . . good idea. Rats I didn't think of it on the field.

bob jenkins

Tim C wrote
I guess I am confused:

Why didn't you give a safe sign and voice, "No Catch."

Maybe others here will correct me.

Agreed.

Ump Rube

Yes, I agree. Signal "safe," and verbalize "no catch."

If F6 tried to, and is, selling that he caught the ball on the fly, it can be appropriate to point to the ground to further sell your call. But use this sparingly, I had a partner do this on every call, and when he had a close one, he never "another level" to take it to.

ozzy6900

Shmuelg wrote
hmmmm . . . good idea. Rats I didn't think of it on the field.

You didn't........ Groan!
Never mind!

jdmara

Tim C wrote
I guess I am confused:

Why didn't you give a safe sign and voice, "No Catch."

Maybe others here will correct me.

Typically I don't even say catch. I give the safe sign and say "No!...No!" Although occasionally I do say "No Catch"

-Josh

Fritz

jdmara wrote
Typically I don't even say catch. I give the safe sign and say "No!...No!" Although occasionally I do say "No Catch"

-Josh

Go with Tim's suggestion and say "No Catch" it removes any doubt. Similar to potential interference/obstruction calls on a runner/fielder. It you don't have anything, go ahead and signal safe and say "That's nothing" so everyone knows. It saves you from having the players stop or delay their next action wondering if you were going to call something, and then the coaches go nuts because your silence contributed to the problem.

Better "safe" than sorry.

SanDiegoSteve

I thought the safe signal combined with the call of "no catch" was pretty basic Umpiring 101 for any close catch/no catch situation.

😕

zm1283

Fritz wrote
Go with Tim's suggestion and say "No Catch" it removes any doubt. Similar to potential interference/obstruction calls on a runner/fielder. It you don't have anything, go ahead and signal safe and say "That's nothing" so everyone knows. It saves you from having the players stop or delay their next action wondering if you were going to call something, and then the coaches go nuts because your silence contributed to the problem.

Better "safe" than sorry.

Are you saying to give the "safe" signal when you DON'T have obstruction/interference?

I've never heard of this.

johnnyg08

zm1283 wrote
Are you saying to give the "safe" signal when you DON'T have obstruction/interference?

I've never heard of this.

It tells the teams that you saw it and it's nothing.

ozzy6900

My, My! It seems that what some of us take for granted as the "basic teachings" of umpiring seem to have eluded many of the posters here. I am amazed because these signals (catch/no catch, action seen but no interference or obstruction) are taught in our clinics and must be mastered by our students. I know because I am the one that teaches these!

jwwashburn

jdmara wrote
Typically I don't even say catch. I give the safe sign and say "No!...No!" Although occasionally I do say "No Catch"

-Josh

Same here. I quit using the word 'catch' a few years ago because it sometimes caused confusion. I do not think I have anyone confused by a big safe sign and "NO!"

jicecone

Shmuelg wrote
I had this problem last night:

The ball hits the ground briefly (for a millisecond), and then goes into the SS's glove. No question in my mind, but it was a question in the mind of many of the fielders and runners.

Why do you have to explain how long it hit the ground are you trying to convince us that maybe it just could of not, hit the ground. Is there a chance that everyone except you saw it differently. Not trying to be a wise guy here, I have just found that some people tend to explain things with a little more detail, when they are trying to convince others of what they saw.

Besides that, I agree with the crowd here, verbalize "no catch" and take the worry out of being close.

jdmara

jwwashburn wrote
Same here. I quit using the word 'catch' a few years ago because it sometimes caused confusion. I do not think I have anyone confused by a big safe sign and "NO!"

That's my take. If I don't have to say catch, then I don't. "No!..No!" gets the idea across.

-Josh

zm1283

I will never give the safe signal to signal I don't have obstruction or interference. Teach what you want and do what you want, but I've never heard that from anyone in my area. If I don't call it, it's pretty damn obvious that I don't think it's either of the two, so why would it be necessary to give a "safe" signal?

Is that taught at pro school?

UmpJM

zm1283,

zm1283 wrote
I will never give the safe signal to signal I don't have obstruction or interference. ...

You might want to rethink that position.

Is that taught at pro school?

Yes.

It's not something you want to do all the time, but, on occasion, it's the best thing to do.

briancurtin

zm1283 wrote
If I don't call it, it's pretty damn obvious that I don't think it's either of the two, so why would it be necessary to give a "safe" signal?

To prevent exactly what happened in the video with Francouer getting up and just standing there thinking the BR was out.

DG

Tim C wrote
I guess I am confused:

Why didn't you give a safe sign and voice, "No Catch."

Maybe others here will correct me.

Not me. I believe I would have.

zm1283

briancurtin wrote
To prevent exactly what happened in the video with Francouer getting up and just standing there thinking the BR was out.

I'm not talking about a "no catch" signal to show a ball wasn't caught. Everyone does that. We're talking about giving the "no catch" (safe) signal when you AREN'T going to call obstruction or interference.

DG

I was not trained to give a safe signal to indicate no obstruction or interference, so I don't, I just call it when I see it and give no sign when I am not going to call. So I am interested in other's training/point of view.

I was trained to signal Safe, No Catch, on a skipper.. so I do.