Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
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?
|
No ball no call does not require a judgement to communicate...it is obvious.
This NCAA mechanic was discussed and implemented by a lot of great and experienced umpire minds.
It has been used at this level by alot of excellent umpires to acknowledge that the play was noticed and a judgement has been rendered.....
Alot of great umpires have used this mechanic and found it to be quite effective...and incorporated into their mechanics repertoire.