Again I know this is the accepted mechanic and I use it BUT
This is exactly why I feel it is wrong.
F2 is facing away from the plate waiting for the throw. F1 is obviously focused on the ball the other fielders are to far away to know if R3 touched or didn't. The only two people that can be expected to know is R3 and PU.
PU signals safe so everyone assumes the plate was touched.
If I were a coach I'd teach my kids to appeal every single time in this situation at every base, especially at 1st, I'd have my F3 tag every BR called safe. How annoying would that be? But it's the only way as the defense you're going to know.

Hmmmmm, can't agree completely with this.

Any D worth its salt has players/coaches not on the field watching the runners' touch of the bases, and will alert the HC for possible appeals (even if the bag was touched ;) ). Its not like the dugout or coaches' boxes can't comment on missed bases...they do it all the time, as they should.

And, HP is (yet another) different animal. You do NOT signal safe unless the runner touched the plate. If he missed it and the tag was missed, you do nothing, await developments. I think SLAS's example is a case of the runner missing the plate, but the PU deliberately signalling 'safe' to get the game over with.

Well, that's an intergrity issue that simple mechanics cannot address. Once the PU signals 'safe' at the plate, he's safe. It's not like 1B.

LMan,

In SLAS' example, the R3 is forced home. If he beats the tag (of the base) but misses the plate, I believe the proper mechanic is for the PU to indicate SAFE!, just as he would on a BR at 1B.

JM

The sitch was a force play, not a tag.

Because the mechanic is the way it is, it forces bench players and coaches to 'make calls' from the bench. 40-50 ft away in the case of home plate, maybe 130-140 ft away in case of 3b dugout to first. In every other aspect of the game, we umpires detest that thought. In this mechanic we encourage it. I think it can be handled better.