Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Pointing is a faux pas when a runner scores with no play at the plate, because when the umpire fails to point, it screams, "He never touched it!"
But you're describing a different situation in which there is a play, and the umpire sees that the runner scored. The by-the-book mechanic would simply be a Safe signal; it sounds like this PU just used the point instead, which is a little unorthodox.
Remember, on a banger play at the plate where the runner touches home, and the catcher either tags him late or misses the tag completely, the umpire signals Safe. If the runner misses home and the catcher misses the tag, the umpire gives no signal. There is no "tipping" here, so I don't see where a "point" or "no point" under this particular circumstance is any different.
|
There was no play. The throw barely touched the catcher's glove and the runner touched almost all of the plate. Folks across the street could see he touched it.
I agree, I think this point on this type of play for this umpire(if it is his typical move)
does indeed set up a scenario when the next guy misses the plate with no point.