missed 1st base mechanic

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What *usually* happens when BR beats the throw to first (touching the base) by a step or two?

The umpire gives a casual "safe" sign.

That's what should happen when BR beats the throw to fitst (missing the base) by a step or two.

To do otherwise is to make a "non verbal statement" that "something is wrong" and that would tip off one or both teams.

The plate is different because the runner can't be tagged for being "off the base" after touching it. So, you can't give the "safe" sign when there's a missed tag and a missed touch of the plate.

Actually, to be precise, if the runner "overslides" second (either touching or missing the base), the umpire shouldn't make any call, because the runner is still liable to be out on the play. So, it's actually the "safe" call at home that's the exception to the rule. The "no call" is the same as any tag play at second or third.

It was a LONG stretch to even suggest the issue at home, but the logic is getting all messed up here. I don't know what else to say, gents. I've got two different interpreters in two different states (Virginia & Missouri) that are telling me to "no call physically or verbally until something happens, by the offense, by going back to touch the base or defense, by appealing".

Maybe it depends on the area your are in or your likes and dislikes for FED rules. I am a little thrown off, though, by some that would toss the FED book or just pick and choose what to rule on. I would be a little miffed should a coach ask me to rule using OBR or MLB while working a FED game. FED game, FED rules.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I certainly hope the NFHS site gets up and running again.

Royal:

Progessive states in the USA have dumped the Federation Umpire Manual YEARS ago. While the rule book frequently changes it appears that nothing has changed in the Fedlandia Manual since the 60's.

Every single authority follows the majority opinion in this thread.

Your arguement that you "get paid to follow FED rules" does not hold water in this case. This is a mechanics question and FED has just fallen behind the times.

Regards,

Tim,

I'd argue that 'doing nothing' is not following the FED mechanic. 'Doing nothing' gives a signal to the defense that something isn't right. Signaling 'safe' is the correct move to avoid tipping off the defense.

The overwhelming consensus here is to signal safe and wait for an appeal.

[mroyal]

That's too bad that majority rules. When I have an arguement with a coach, I will be using the FED books and mauals to make my case, not what the majority of the board says.

[Tim C]

Royal:

Next you'll tell us that on a bases empty triple you guys have the plate umpire cover third base.

Oregon, with the blessing of the NFHS, use "Oregon Modified Mechanics" and we teach the entire state through a manual ("Umpiring for the Two Umpire System") to make things consistent.

Just because one works an NFHS games does not mean you must use NFHS Mechanics . . . we have moved into the 21st Century.

Regards,

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by mroyal

That's too bad that majority rules. When I have an arguement with a coach, I will be using the FED books and mauals to make my case, not what the majority of the board says.

Your mistake, which I and others have already pointed out, is that you're only reading part of the statement and ignoring the part about tipping off either team. By not signaling safe you're tipping off the defense.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Your mistake, which I and others have already pointed out, is that you're only reading part of the statement and ignoring the part about tipping off either team. By not signaling safe you're tipping off the defense.

By signaling, though, you are giving a "non-verbal" statement.

In Missouri there are no other manuals that have been created or written to suppliment the FED. Until then and with the backing of our local interp, a no-call is being made until something happens.

As for the rotation, no rule infraction here. I'm saving my partner and keeping him at the plate. The missed base is a rules infraction. The rotation of umpires has no bearing on the rules.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mroyal

That's too bad that majority rules. When I have an arguement with a coach, I will be using the FED books and mauals to make my case, not what the majority of the board says.

As I stated in post #2 of this thread, answering the OP, professional instruction is to do as I've said on this play. Signal and verbalize "safe" when the runner acquires 1B ahead of the throw, whether or not he touches the base.

You're not interpreting the FED manual correctly. The instruction not to signal is an instruction not to signal the ERROR. The only way to do so is to signal the BR's acquiring 1B in the usual fashion.

You can do what you like, but you have no backing by rule or any mechanics manual. And I will trust my pro school instruction over your anonymous sources "in two states."

[David B]

Originally Posted by mroyal

It was a LONG stretch to even suggest the issue at home, but the logic is getting all messed up here. I don't know what else to say, gents. I've got two different interpreters in two different states (Virginia & Missouri) that are telling me to "no call physically or verbally until something happens, by the offense, by going back to touch the base or defense, by appealing".

Maybe it depends on the area your are in or your likes and dislikes for FED rules. I am a little thrown off, though, by some that would toss the FED book or just pick and choose what to rule on. I would be a little miffed should a coach ask me to rule using OBR or MLB while working a FED game. FED game, FED rules.

I might be checking on to make sure the interpreters are not simply giving an opinion, (based on old old theology).

In calling FED rules, please be sure to follow FED rules, but the FED manual is not a rule book. It is simply a suggestion to help standardize mechanics. As Tim noted, the FED manual is out of sync with the rest of the baseball world, has been for many years.

Thanks
David

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by mroyal

It was a LONG stretch to even suggest the issue at home, but the logic is getting all messed up here. I don't know what else to say, gents. I've got two different interpreters in two different states (Virginia & Missouri) that are telling me to "no call physically or verbally until something happens, by the offense, by going back to touch the base or defense, by appealing".

Don't know about Missouri, but I'm a current Virginia umpire, and not only are you in the minority opinion on this board, but there's not been any Virginia interpretation that I've heard contrary to what everyone's trying to tell you.

Originally Posted by mroyal

Maybe it depends on the area your are in or your likes and dislikes for FED rules. I am a little thrown off, though, by some that would toss the FED book or just pick and choose what to rule on. I would be a little miffed should a coach ask me to rule using OBR or MLB while working a FED game. FED game, FED rules.

You're also now making the mistake that the coaches know the rules. At all. Or that they know the specific differences between OBR and NHFS. OR that they know, or give a $%^#, about what the FED umpire manual says. If they want to argue, they will argue.

And grabbing the crappy end of the stick by insisting on this will lead to more trouble than its worth. You stand there, signaling nothing, and both coaches will yell and scream, and the one that "loses" the call will yell even more.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I don't know what else to say, gents. I've got two different interpreters in two different states (Virginia & Missouri) that are telling me to no call physically or verbally until something happens, by the offense, by going back to touch the base or defense, by appealing

First off the scenario we are discussing is rare, however,

Let's GET REAL and that will answer your question.

You are F1, F4 or F3. B1 beats the PLAY, and misses first base and Blue says or Signals NOTHING.

As a Fielder if you do not get a call (even a casual one) from the BU.

Guess what! The light-bulb! will go off and even if you didn't see the runner miss the base, you will instinctively say "Blue the runner missed first base" otherwise the BU would have signalled something. Now you got a cheap out.

That's the rationale for making the safe call at first base, because you might as well signal and say OUT if you remain silent.

Pete Booth

[archangel]

Its my opinion(and we all know whats those are worth) that most umpires that dont want to signal safe per the OP, are basing their decision on their ego, not on FED interpretations.

They just dont want to signal safe, then "out" after a proper appeal because it makes them look unsure of their call (kinda like--"safe, no wait...out!"), then here comes a coaches wrath.....so its more of--how can I work this game, quietly, and look good.....

[celebur]

Originally Posted by mroyal

By signaling, though, you are giving a "non-verbal" statement.

Similarly, by not signaling, you are giving a "non-verbal" statement too. The difference is that the first case (signaling as if the base wasn't missed) doesn't tip off either the offense or the defense, whereas the second (not signaling anything) tips off both teams and likely gives an unfair advantage to the defense.

Which mechanic better satisfies the FED manual?

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by mroyal

That's too bad that majority rules. When I have an arguement with a coach, I will be using the FED books and mauals to make my case, not what the majority of the board says.

The majority of umpires on this board have seen and done lots more than I have on the field and I trust what they have to say. I would go with the majority here in a majority of cases. Just my view.

And no, a safe sign doesn't tip anyone off because it's what everyone expects. Learning when to follow something to the letter is part of improving at umpiring.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by mroyal

That's too bad that majority rules. When I have an arguement with a coach, I will be using the FED books and mauals to make my case, not what the majority of the board says.

Just accept that this IS the correct thing to do, learn from it and move on. When the majority has the experience that the majority on here have, you need to open your eyes and see the light. Cuz when this majority is this united, it can only mean they're right. If they weren't, you'd see others arguing on your side. (There's a reason you don't)

The majority rules because they're right.

When you hae an arguement with a coach you should explain it EXACTLY as it has been explained to you here. He is safe until a proper appeal is made. He acquires the base once he touches or passes it. He beat the ball TO the base, he's safe. He missed the base, now he's out on appeal.

Simple discussion:
"You called him safe"
"yes, sir"
"Why'd you change it?"
"I didn't. He missed the base and they appealed. I saw him miss it, so I called him out on the appeal."

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by waltjp

If a runner beats a throw to a base but misses the base he's assumed to have touched it.

FED 8-3-8: "A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out."

I don't see anything about assuming he touched it if he passes over it.

FWIW, I've learned from here to call it like others have been taught, but I don't agree with it.