Selling the call, by NOT selling the call.
 

Had an interesting play at 1st tonight. VAR-HS Second round of Section Finals.

No outs, no runners.

Batter hits a grounder up the 1st base line. F1 fields the ball, and makes a throw to F3 before he has his foot on the bag. I had moved in to wards the base and into Foul territory to make the call. I have a perfect view of F3 catching the ball, and tagging the outfield side of the bag, about a step before the runner touches the bag.

Now, I know for sure the runner is out, but I'm thinking that the rest of the world thinks F3 didn't touch the bag (which they didn't). Rather than do a "close play" punch-out / explanation of what I saw, I do a standard, "no big deal" out hammer, and trot back to "A".

It worked, with only a few grumblings. This is not the first time I have sold a play by acting like it was no big deal.

So you called an out when there was not an out?

Also, how did F1 make a play down the first base line?

Peace

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.

1) I assume (yeah, I know) that Nick reversed F1 and F3.

2) I'd combine the two answers -- I'd point at the bag to indicate F1 touched it (probably with a verbal), and then I'd give a "normal" out call.

3) I agree that some calls are "oversold" and that some calls can be better sold if they are undersold. (Huh?)

Reading is Fundamental.

No ... he called an out when there WAS an out (this is what happens when the first baseman catches the ball and touches first base before the batter-runner gets there - we call the batter runner out), but instead of selling it like a close play, he undersold it like it was no big deal. I've done the same on occasion, and if you don't overuse it, it works.

2nd question - is there something odd on your fields that prevents a pitcher from fielding a very short grounder along the first base line? Seems pretty normal to me.

It may turn out that I'm wrong ... but I don't assume that at all. I assume U1 was prevented from cutting to 90 degrees because of the first baseman running right at the bag as the pitcher fielded a short ground ball along the first base line. Otherwise, I have trouble visualizing the PITCHER making the catch and then touching the OUTFIELD side of first, as he posted. Surely this is F3 approaching from the OF side, and touching first on the OF side - where no fans/coaches could see it.

I agree with your philosophy of "oversold calls".

I think sometimes the fans take their reaction from the umpire also. To you it was a routine call, the fans assumed that.

I like the way Bob explained, a point to the bag - just to let everyone know that you saw it.

Also, you get a great view of this call by moving into foul territory, and it give PU something to hustle about just in case of an overthrow etc.,

Thanks
David

The 'point' works wonders. It tells everyone you have/saw additional information on the play (not visible to them, most likely) that triggered your call.

He said F3 did not touch the bag. Or at the very least implied that and that I why I asked the question. I do not think that what he wanted to say, but it surely was not clear. If you want people to understand then you have to be clearer in your statement.

Funny, he never said short ground ball, so there is a lot to assume. This is why I was confused because the play you describe is not the play he described. Once again if you want people to understand what you write, you have to be clear.

Peace

From the descrption, I see no reason to take this in foul territory and several reasons to bust toward the "1st - 2nd basepath" to make the call."

This part is confusing: "but I'm thinking that the rest of the world thinks F3 didn't touch the bag (which they didn't)." They didn't what? They didn't think what you thought they'd think?" Then no selling was needed. If they thought what you thought they'd think, selling was in order.

You may be thinking the no sell was better because you are confusing the lack of a fuss with acceptance of your call.

The title Selling / No selling a call has me a bit confused because you are talking about plays at first base. Occasionally we all get the "clean" game when doing the bases meaning there were no "bangers" or even close plays.

IMO, as Bob pointed out the call in your OP is routine by simply pointing to the bag indicating to EVERYONE that F3 had the bag and then make the out call. IMO it's not selling or not selling but doing your job.

Also, as others mentioned "why go to Foul Territory"

Suppose the ball was thrown away. You are now way behind the runner and out of position to make a potential call at second base. Your play could have turned "ugly" (unless the PU had your back) if the ball was thrown away, retrieved and a subsequent play at second base.

Note there are no edits on Nick's post. Nick pretty clearly says he saw F3 tagging the outfield side of the bag. How, again, does this imply that F3 did not touch the bag? How is this "surely not clear". Seems crystal to me.

I am not saying he needs an edit. I am saying that his post from my point of view and even others is not clear. If he makes an edit that is his right to do so, but we did not see the play, he did. All we can do is go by what he gave us. It is not for the reader to guess what you mean. I have done this myself where I have been vague or not clear especially when I am in a hurry or I do not read over my post before hitting the button.

Peace

I'm not sure why you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that the OP has not been edited after your posts - it says exactly what it said in the first place.

He says, " I have a perfect view of F3 catching the ball, and tagging the outfield side of the bag, about a step before the runner touches the bag". You say "He said F3 did not touch the bag". It's right there in black and white. "I have a perfect view of F3... tagging the base." Crystal freakin' clear. How does his statement imply any sort of ambiguity at all. I understand that in the past people (you, myself included) have been vague. But this is as unvague as you can get. "I saw the sky - it was blue." vs "He says he couldn't see the sky and didn't know what color it was. He needs to be clearer regarding whether he saw the sky or not."

the the first sentence of this paragraph is the part that is confusing some. "which they didn't" is really trying to say they didn' think that F3 touched the bag, it could be clearer but when you read it this way the post as a whole makes sense.

as for the issue at hand, i use this technique of underselling calls occasionally and it's usually effective. i also like to use the point that has been mentioned by others