Selling the call, by NOT selling the call.

[JRutledge]

Once again he put "which they didn't" into parenthesis which I confused for him saying the player did not touch the bag. Of course that is not what he was really saying, but that is why I asked for clarification. Also he was not clear about who got to the ball and why and you had to claim it was a short ground ball (which he did not say BTW) so I was asking for clarification. You ask for clarification so you understand what the person is trying to say. Once again I did not see the play, Nick did. I was also not the only one with some questions to what “actually” happen.

Also I did not ask you for clarification, I asked Nick.

Peace

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also he was not clear about who got to the ball

How? He said F1 fielded the ball. He also said F1 threw to F3, who caught the ball and then tagged the outfield side of the bag. Still not seeing why this wasn't clear.

and you had to claim it was a short ground ball (which he did not say BTW) so I was asking for clarification.

You're right. He didn't say it. My bad. Every ball I've ever seen F1 field was a short ground ball. My apologies for assuming that ALL must be. I guess you could be right that maybe F1 fielded this in right field and flipped to F3 behind him. That makes sense. (Although I guess this could explain why Nick took the play from the foul side! ) I also apologize that I assumed that when Nick said F1 fielded the ball, that F1 actually fielded the ball. My bad. Just as horrible - my assumption that when he said F1 threw to F3, he meant that F1 threw to F3. Sorry bout that.

There was, at MOST, a mild degree of ambiguity regarding what he was saying the FANS saw. The play itself was exceedingly clear, and was only made muddy by you (and others) who decided to assume he didn't mean what he said, and then claimed that your assumption didn't make sense.

The play itself - grounder to the pitcher on the first base line, thrown to the first baseman, who clearly tagged the outfield part of the bag - was pretty much perfectly spelled out. Not sure how this play suddenly became a grounder to first base, who threw to pitcher, who then had to have broken an ankle skipping OVER first base to clearly tag the outfield side of the bag. Do we really think THAT scenario is clearer than what he actually typed?

[JRutledge]

Honestly, I think you are making a bigger deal out of this. I asked Nick for clarification and he has yet to clarify. It really is not that big of a deal, I just wanted to know what happen. If he does not clarify I will not lose a bit of sleep because I do not have an issue of when to sell a call or not.

For the record if you think everyone did not see something, what you do is based on how much credibility you have with the participants and they type of play. I will usually say "he got the bag" if that is an issue, but I would not call that selling the call either. I would say the very same thing like, "He got the tag" on a play where the tag might be in question.

Peace

[nickrego]

I still have pretty good wheels, so when I think being in Foul Territory will give me the best look, and keep me out of the play, that's where I go.

Remember, the best view of a play is from the stands, which are in just outside of Foul Territory.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by nickrego

I still have pretty good wheels, so when I think being in Foul Territory will give me the best look, and keep me out of the play, that's where I go.

In my area we are constrained by what our association has deemed appropriate mechanics. (CCA for the most part) Foul territory is rarely a first or good choice.

With F3 moving toward his bag and then touching the outfield side of it, and F1 down the line, the fair side 90 puts me in position to see the play, keeps me out of harms way and places me in the perfect spot to take the runner to second and beyond on a bad throw.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by GarthB

In my area we are constrained by what our association has deemed appropriate mechanics. (CCA for the most part) Foul territory is rarely a first or good choice.

With F3 moving toward his bag and then touching the outfield side of it, and F1 down the line, the fair side 90 puts me in position to see the play, keeps me out of harms way and places me in the perfect spot to take the runner to second and beyond on a bad throw.

I'm starting to prefer 1SF to 90 degrees, and I've not found myself out of position (yet) when trying it.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I'm starting to prefer 1SF to 90 degrees, and I've not found myself out of position (yet) when trying it.

When I get older, I might prefer that, too.

I have seen umpires using it miss front and back of bag touches and needlessly get in the way of runners.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by GarthB

When I get older, I might prefer that, too.

I have seen umpires using it miss front and back of bag touches and needlessly get in the way of runners.

I'm 39!

I can't see ever getting in the way of a runner - you're 18-20 feet down the line, shouldn't be a problem. And I can't see missing a back bag touch. I CAN see missing a front bag, and on F3-F1 plays, I'm going to move to the 90 instead. Like I said, though, I've just started trying it out - so I definitely haven't seen everything on this yet.

I do think I get a better view of all the relevant information though. At least so far. Perhaps this deserves a separate topic though!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If F1 fielded the ball down the first base line, and threw to F3 at first base, how did you end up in foul territory? This is a situation where you should bust inside to as close to a 90 degree angle as you can get, as this is considered like a ball hit to the "imaginary box" area which extends from home plate to the mound, and to each foul line from there. This is not the time to go into foul ground (unless you are working 3 or 4 man). This isn't even a "2 steps fair" situation, either. As close to a 90 as you can get.

Also, why would you be hesitant to actually sell a call which you feel is not going to appear the same to others? If a call needs selling, then sell it. It does not make you look unsure when you correctly sell a call, and then strut back to A position. What looks bad is giving a wimpy, nonchalant call on a play that coaches and fans perceive could perhaps go either way.

A good "standing banger" along with "yeah, he got the bag!" done confidently should leave no doubt, and even fewer grumblings.

Wow, what a concise post.

BTW, pointing at a play is part of selling a play in which something unusual has occurred. A point should not be used in conjunction with a nonchalant out signal on plays in which the outcome is not obvious too all. On obvious "on the tag" type calls at first, a point and simple nonchalant hammer are fine.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by nickrego

I still have pretty good wheels, so when I think being in Foul Territory will give me the best look, and keep me out of the play, that's where I go.

Remember, the best view of a play is from the stands, which are in just outside of Foul Territory.

Unfortunately, when you go into foul territory, mechanics dictate that you are to stay there and take any overthrow at first, while the poor home plate umpire you screwed has to bust his butt out there and take the BR around the diamond.

The ONLY good time to go into foul territory (on plays to the infield) from Position A is when there is extreme pressure toward first base from F4 going deep into the hole. Even then I will go 1 step fair if at all possible.

[JugglingReferee]

Bball and Fball guy here. In comment to the apparent mixup among the replies near the beginning, I read the OP and I understood 100% what was going on. The OP's mechanics may or may not have been correct (I wouldn't know) but for someone who reads the baseball forum sporatically, I had no doubt what the OP was about.

And OP, yes, I agree: having the no-brainer mechanic has worked for me too!

[3appleshigh]

I think it is odd that you all just assume 2 man mechanics, in 3 man he is most likely encoraged to head to foul on this play. Mostly this assumtion is shocking since y'all love to jump on people who make assumtions.

Tee hee hee

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

When I get older, I might prefer that, too.

I have seen umpires using it miss front and back of bag touches and needlessly get in the way of runners.

I got burned on a play last season where I used xSF (x steps fair) rather than bust for a 90. And it was a routine one-hopper back to the pitcher, who then ran towards the line and then short-hopped it to first and F3 blocked my view entirely and I had no clue whether he bobbled it or not. I should've been near the line between first and second, but I was lazy and paid for it.

Since then I am always where I can see the catch without looking through the fielder. I'm sure I look silly busting in so far on a routine ball back to F1, but burn me once....

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

I think it is odd that you all just assume 2 man mechanics, in 3 man he is most likely encoraged to head to foul on this play. Mostly this assumtion is shocking since y'all love to jump on people who make assumtions.

Tee hee hee

Why would anyone be encouraged to head foul in 3-man?

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Why would anyone be encouraged to head foul in 3-man?

No runners, U3 would be moving toward the working area on the ground ball. PU still trails & U1 could slide into foul territory on this without worry about potential plays at 2B or 3B on an overthrow.