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

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

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: 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. 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. :rolleyes:

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?

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

Working from Foul Territory
 

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. :D

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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! :)

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

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....

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.

Going to foul territory is not only common in many movements for the first base umpire, but it is almost necessary when rotating home. Of course there can be some variations in mechanics sets, but for the most part that is where the first base umpire can move freely without running into another umpire or player.

Peace

Great job
 

IMO try to make every call routine, and you sell half the crowd your right.

I also get in the habit on close safe calls to not vocalize the call unless i have need to do so. A quiet safe and a voice loud enough for the 1B, BR and 1B coach can sell the call wonderfully.

sometimes you have to sell it with a loud voice and demonstrative signal, and sometimes a "soft answer turns away anger."

Could slide....but this doesn't equate to being "encouraged" to make a call from there.

A better question is why wouldn't we assume 2 man mechanics unless otherwise stated. The general rule is that we are discussing 2 man mechanics, and when that changes, we point it out.

I guess I'm just jumping on you for your false assumption!:p