Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
As I understand it, the purpose of the "safe" signal when seeing a play where they think you should be calling something is to acknowledge that 1) yes, I saw it, too, 2) I have made a judgment, it is a "no call", and 3) coming out to argue with me is challenging judgment, so you better come out asking about the rule, or else suggesting a different angle might have additional information to add.
To me, the biggest positive is that it stops the "he wasn't looking" griping; you can disagree with my judgment, but you know I saw it, and ruled on it. Personally, I think it is a good thing, when used appropriately (and not over-used).
|
Well, we will just disagree. Not only do I believe it is redundant since the lack of a signal means you did not believe it was a violation or you did not see it, which in every case of which I am aware, excludes the umpire from ruling otherwise.
On top of that, I believe it is an inappropriate signal as nothing occurred to suggest a player could be safe or out since if it did, there would have been another signal and/or call.
And while we are at it, this mechanic precludes absolutely no argument. It will be no different than any other play with or without a signal. It may actually be more inviting more trouble than what it is worth. It may be looked at as just another level of debate upon which a coach can hang their hat. "Blue, I knew you saw it! Obviously there was something there which made you think there could have been an infraction, but you decided not to call it."
And doesn't this pretty much fly in the face of the "no ball, no call" philosophy?