The MLBUM list's situations in which another umpire should signal to his partner that he's got something for him on the play. These are to be "inconspicuous" signals used when a call is missed.

Some of the guys I work with like to do this, and some think it's best just to wait for your partner to ask for help. The thought on the latter, being that too many secret signals between umpires erodes the confidence the games participants have in the crew.

I'm curious as to what signals you use in these situations, and in what situations you use them in. That's if you use them at all.

Tim.

Let's see,
 

Ya I just looked it up:

This is the 937th time this issue has been discussed on this website.

The instant an umpire uses a secret signal it will eventually not be secret much longer.

All secret signals do is give the observant rat a heads up that there is a problem.

NEVER EVER think of using secret signals . . . use the signals as expected and watch your umpire career advance.

T

In NY, when a base umpire has something for one of his partners he will stand in his normal position with his hat in his hand extended by his leg. When the plate umpire has something for the base umpire, he will keep his mask on and place his hands inside his ball bags (If he only wears one bag, he puts the other hand at his side). Not every umpire in my area uses these signals, but we all know what they mean. I think they are pretty inconspicuous, yet effective.

In this area if the base umpire thinks he his view of a play from 90 + feet away was better than the plate umpire who was properly postioned and made the call, he stands on one leg and hops up and down, points with one hand to left field and rubs his crotch with the other hand while yelling, "ask me, ask me!"

On the other hand, when the plate umpire just knows he's got the play at second better than the base umpire, he puts his hand in his ball bag, grabs a ball and flings it at the BU, while holding a road flare between his teeth.

Pretty inconspicous, and seems to works well for those who need them.

The rest of us respond with what we have when we are asked. Yeah, I know, old school, but those of us using this method, strangely enough, have smoother games.

I haven't been doing this as long as T or Garth has, but there are a few things I do know.

If you go to your partner once with extraneous information without being asked for it you will be doing it on every close or questionable call he has.

If my partner comes up to me and tells me "oh if I have something for you on a call, I'll do this". I'll tell him to go ahead, I won't see it. I'll also tell him that if I need his help, I'll ask him for it.

Like T and Garth said, don't use them.

One of our "more seasoned" umpires uses a special IFF signal when he is working with a newbie. It always gets a laugh in the "post game".

:D



.............................................
..................../´¯/)..................
.................,/¯../.....................
................/..../.......................
........./``/´¯/'---'/´¯¯`•¸............
......../'/.../..../......./¨¯\.............
.......('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')..........
........\.................'...../............
.........''...\.......... _.•´..............
...........\..............(................
.............\.............\................

I prefer to use the Rollie method by saying "Hey, [Partner's Name], would you like to ask me anything about that play? Go ahead, ask me. I don't mind."

Old school guys might say that you don't say anything until asked. That's the way it has been for about 10,000 years BUT now things are changing. Umpire clinics are teaching that IF you have something that will help your partner you should let him know, even unsolicited. The important thing is to get the call right.

I tell my partner(s) that if they have something that might help me to take their caps off and I will do the same for them. It hasn't caused a problem for me and it has even helped a couple of times.

Here's instructions from the 2005 NCAA Div. I Champ. Game Officials Manual:

6.11
C) In the situations listed below, a partner who is 100% certain he has additional information unknown to the umpire making the call should approach unsolicited and alert the other umpire to such information. However, the ultimate decision to change a call rests with the calling umpire.
1. Deciding if a home run is fair or foul.
2. Deciding whether a batted ball left the playing field for a home run or ground rule double.
3. Cases where a foul tip is dropped or trapped by the catcher.
4. Cases where a foul fly ball is caught or not caught.
5. Cases when an umpire clearly errs in judgment because they did not see the ball dropped or juggled after making a tag or force.
6. Spectator interference plays.
7. Balks called by an umpire who clearly did not realize the pitcher�s foot was off the rubber.

F) Judgment calls, which have traditionally not been subject to reversal, include: steal and other tag plays (except if the ball is dropped without the umpire's knowledge as discussed above); force plays (when the ball is not dropped and the foot is not pulled); balls and strikes (other than check swings). This practice shall continue. Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems. An example is a 'catch/no catch' with multiple runners.

Overall, umpires are urged to seek help on reversible plays in which they may have erred by not seeing a crucial element of a play. Such meetings, while necessary, should be infrequent and not become a substitute for umpires seeking proper angles, exercising sound judgment, and having the conviction to stay with a call that an umpire believes was properly made.

Did this thread take a strange twist, or is it justme?

This thread was not started as debate of "getting" the calls right, or even offering help. The thread began as a question regarding double super secret signals. My experience over the years has been similar to Tee's: Secret signals do not remain secret for long and can cause umpires grief.

In reference to your subject, of course there are instances, particulary homerun/ground rule double decisions, in which umpires will offer assistance. If you've noticed the recent changes at the NCAA and ML level, these do not involve "secret" signals.

Garth, maybe he missed your double secret signal....

perhaps you weren't rubbing your crotch long enough...

:D

The only "secret" signal I can think of that I use with partners I'm VERY familiar with is more the reverse of what you're talking about. As PU, I'm not making any sort of signal to BU (or to the world) to alert him (and the world) that I think he botched a call - and vice versa as the BU.

However, having worked with 3 or 4 guys on many occasions, if the BU is calling a plate at 1st base, for example, and HE (not I) thinks there is a possibility for a pulled foot that he missed because of an unanticipated straight-line, during his normal hesitation between the play and the call, he'll glance at me (PU). If I am 100% sure I saw a foot pulled, I'll quickly lift my foot (looks like a small, quick step in place), and HE'll make the safe call, and then point at the foot saying "Pulled his foot", or something along those lines. With no footpull (or at least not 100%), I stand still, and he makes the normal out call, then also knowing that if the coach asks him to check with me, he can tell the coach he already did, and the call stands.

But this is really just shorthand for us and looks cleaner than calling him out, and then asking more obviously (to the world) if PU saw a foot pull.

I know there are a few here that NEVER ask partner for help. I see the straightlined footpull and the straightlined swipe tag as two clear instances that even the BEST umpire knows he may have missed once every year or two.

This works best when dealing with a "Gray Area" call. God knows baseball is full of them. Why, you can't hardly walk on a field these days without tripping over one. Heck, I'd bet somebody could do a ten part article on this and never tire of it.

*** Did this thread take a strange twist, or is it justme? ***

Relax GB, I didn't mean to pee in your Wheaties. I wasn't aware that you were limiting the subject matter. Next reply I make, just skip over it.... you'll have a less stressful day.

Oh, relax, no stress about it.

You did, however, make a direct reference to the "old school" line that I had included in a post that was made in reply to the thread's subject. You then attempted to conclude those "old schoolers" were not in agreement with making sure the correct call was made.

I was merely correcting your assumptions...just keeping you honest.

When replying to a post, it's alwasy best to actually reply to wjat others say instead of putting your words in their mouths.

If you'd like to change topics, no problem. This new fangled technology allows you to start a thread. It's not all that hard to do if you're not too busy trying to find strange places to pee.

[Edited by GarthB on Nov 30th, 2005 at 04:12 PM]

"When replying to a post, it's alwasy best to actually reply to wjat others say instead of putting your words in their mouths."

I love that line. Where did you see it recently?






(Typos were intentional by Garth; as Pete in AZ can attest, being a teacher doesn't mean you can't be creative with the language. :))

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 30th, 2005 at 05:26 PM]

1. I don't recall seeing it recently, although I've used it several times in the past.

2. Typos were not intentional. They are a result of imperfect typing skills. I apologize if they offend you. From what I recall about our alleged Pete in AZ, he didn't seem to be able to attest to much at all.

You should read most any of my recent replies to Carl and BU56. I am constantly reminding them not to do this.

Garth, garth, garth - your words rarely offend me; remember, sticks and stones...

Your mistakes bother me, especially when you criticize others for making the same ones. But, that is what umpires are prone to do when the call isn't theirs to make.

I don't know about Pete, but my response to you was sarcastic. It was meant to elucidate the double standard you've employed. Don't be distraught, I'll still keep you on my Christmas Card list. This is the season of giving.

You disappoint me. I've employed no double standard. I haven't criticized anyone for making any mistake I have made.

I would have thought you'd have known the difference between a typographical error and a serious grammatical error. I would have thought you'd have know the difference bewteen a spelling error and a lack of knowledge of sentence structure.

Could I have over estimated you? My bad. ("That was" is implied, in case you were wondering.)

Leave me out of this
 

WWTB, please do not bring my name into this. As innocent as it was, these guys don't play by the rules. I thought this was a civil forum but see that Tim and Garth are no better than the guys they make fun of on McGriff's site. You cannot hear sincerity or inflection within these words. Twisting them is what they do best. Garth, I feel sorry for you since that is your most distinguishable trait.

[Edited by Pete in AZ on Nov 30th, 2005 at 06:05 PM]

GB:

Put words in your mouth? I was just stating my opinion, if you feel that I was attacking you or trying to put words in your mouth then you have issues that go beyond my post.

I wasn't aware that I had been dishonest but if you feel that I need you to help keep me honest then you go right ahead. It never hurts to have a few extra people looking out for you. Finally, if it will make you feel better then I will say that I agree with you and you are right. Now we have no further need to argue :-)

I didn't mean to drag you into this, so I apologize. I used your name to reference the fact that they jumped all over you for the way you write, but when I chastised Garth (Tim simply makes to many errors to waste my time here.) for the same, he became defensive and critical. This is not McGriffs, but a couple of them don't know it.

Just so that the moderator doesn't get confused; secret signals are silly. If you have something for the guy, let him know. You shouldn't need a signal since the coaches will be pretty bositerous at that point.

You are re-writing history. You couldn't have chastised me for making the same mistakes as our alleged attorney friend. Why? Because I didn't make the same mistakes.

You accuse others of twisting facts and changing direction, and now you employ those very techniques. Again...disappointing.

Oh, and unlike you and the others who post at McGriff's, I have no need to hide behind an anonymous name when I post. I'm not afraid to stand behind anything I write.

[Edited by GarthB on Nov 30th, 2005 at 06:49 PM]

My, aren't you the clever one? I never asked you to agree with anything. I asked only that you didn't misrepresent what I had said. I see now that you either don't understand, or you have the social skills of a snake. Either way, as you suggest, I will no longer read or reply to your posts.

Have a good season.

http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/nc/Crayon.gif
:D

POTD

Garth,

Don't really care if you can type, spell, pee on the floor, carry your lunch to work or count backwards from one.

That was Funny.

You just proved my point, mistakes are one thing that you love to point out. I obliged when you did it to someone else. Now, you are at it again. I don't edit my posts for typos, they live on in perpetuity. Writing well and typing correctly are things that a few of you don't understand. Like you said, it was just a typo, not a grammatical error. That must be that double standard you don't use. (cheshire grin)

Your comment about McGriffs is curious. I haven't written anything there in quite some time. Long before the purging, I felt little need to dialogue with those who think that f*ck and sh*t are the pinnacle of substantive writing. I used the name WindyCityBlue there and always have. To you I may be hiding, but others have no problem knowing that I'm not afraid to put my screen name with my opinion. I don't seek the approval of others and accolades are not why I write on internet forums. My self esteem is not an issue, so I choose not to use my birth name. From what you've written lately, you've done your relatives proud! Keep up the good work.

I also notice that Jurassic is at his old tricks again. Is it worse that he can't add anything to the discussion or that he just proves he can't? As Pete wrote earlier, I feel sorry for you.

What the F are you talking about? Your mind must be slipping. I have not accused you of making mistakes in the writing of any of your posts. What double standard? I have not accused anyone of doing anything I have done, with the obvious exception of my sons when they were teenagers. One always has to try to help them avoid mistakes. It never works, but one has to try. You seem to following the school of thought that if you repeat something often enough, it will be believed. What the hey, Clinton tried it, why not you?

It appears you are confusing posts from other indivdiduals, but I really have no interest in trying to figure you out any longer. Like HHH I had originally thought there was some merit to you, but you have grown tiresome.

We, who have the courage to use our real names, are not involved in ego. We just have nothing to hide. Those who hide behind "handles" can offer any reason they want; the truth is they are not accepting responsiblity for anything they say as long as they hide.

Please enjoy a long and prosperous life. Be happy. But don't feel any further need to fill me in on any progress. You belong in the Jim Porter closet. Be sure to keep the door closed.

Yup, he's laughing at ya. Not <b>with</b> ya, <b>at</b> ya.

You and the Mad Editor are great entertainment. :D

A perfect ending to this thread. The mods should close it before someone thinks they can do better.

Garth,
Let me refresh a dinosaur's memory.

Pete in AZ (sorry Pete, but this guy is relentless)

Did you or did you not ridicule him for what and how he wrote?

People who use noms de net are not hiding anymore than you are in need of attention for using your name. I used the analogy before, I don't need to see the cook to know that meal tasted terrific. You must be an atheist as well; you require proof before you'll believe.

There, now the mods can close this because you don't understand that your hypocrisy is approaching legendary levels.

"You can get a good look at a T-Bone by sticking your head up the butcher's as$....no, that's not it...." - Tommy Boy Callahan

http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/nc/Crayon.gif
:D [/B][/QUOTE]

U spelt kraon rong.
JJ

Yes, but he 'meant' to do it.

This is just when Garth and Tee are in two man together, right?

Are we still talking about "secret signals"? I remember one time I used my super secret signal while working the plate (picking my nose) and my partner yelled " Yes he did".

Bob

Not any more, at least on this thread. ;)