missed 1st base mechanic

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

But the runner did legally acquire the base and can only be put out on appeal. You have made a post where you make it quite clear you have no intention of listening to anybody else on the board and are going to use the mechanics that you deem fit to use even if it is incorrect. Best of luck to you.

I'm not here to take the majority rule answer from an opinion poll. If the BR leagally acquired the base, then he can't be put out. In this case, he didn't touch the base, so he is liable to be put out - yes on proper appeal. But, the manual says don't signal anything on a missed base. How is that my mechanic? Where does it say in the FED book to "safe" the BR on a missed base? It doesn't. I'm not putting my personal mechanics in here - just following the FED manual.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I'm not here to take the majority rule answer from an opinion poll. If the BR leagally acquired the base, then he can't be put out. In this case, he didn't touch the base, so he is liable to be put out - yes on proper appeal. But, the manual says don't signal anything on a missed base. How is that my mechanic? Where does it say in the FED book to "safe" the BR on a missed base? It doesn't. I'm not putting my personal mechanics in here - just following the FED manual.

Following the FED manual can be very dangerous. All the interps I've ever heard says that the runner is considered safe unless an appeal is made. Don't you agree that not making any call whatsoever would be tipping off the defense that the runner missed the base? If I were the F3 (which was my position in my playing days), I would have known immediately that the runner missed the base when the umpire didn't make any call at all. So the "signal" in this case is the lack of a signal, which tips off the fielder, which in turn creates an unfair advantage and gives away the appeal. It's up to the defense to be alert to the runner missing a base. A runner acquires the base when he touches or passes the base. If he misses the base, he is subject to being called out ON APPEAL. No appeal, no out.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Following the FED manual can be very dangerous. All the interps I've ever heard says that the runner is considered safe unless an appeal is made. Don't you agree that not making any call whatsoever would be tipping off the defense that the runner missed the base? If I were the F3 (which was my position in my playing days), I would have known immediately that the runner missed the base when the umpire didn't make any call at all. So the "signal" in this case is the lack of a signal, which tips off the fielder, which in turn creates an unfair advantage and gives away the appeal. It's up to the defense to be alert to the runner missing a base. A runner acquires the base when he touches or passes the base. If he misses the base, he is subject to being called out ON APPEAL. No appeal, no out.

Let me be the devil's advocate here, but why would following the FED be a bad thing? Isn't that what we're suppose to be doing? It's more of a dangerous thing to pick and choose what we will follow (OBR, MLB) or mix and match. That's not fair to the kids and coaches. We expect them to know the rules.

As far as tipping off the defense, they're they ones playing by the rules. They didnt' miss the tag/base, the BR did. Again, why give the advantage to the rulebreaker? But, I would imagine that not everyone will catch a no-call like this. The bright ones will. And as far as interps go, I'll raise you my interps emphasising the "no call." BTW - giving a "safe" is a "non-verbal" signal - going against the FED manual in this situation.

This might not be fair, but this getting-the-base-even-though-he-hasn't-touched-it would be a failing argument if we applied the logic to the defense. Even if the ball beats the runner, by rule we require the defense to touch the base/runner to earn the out unless the BR/R deserts the base. There is an argument about the fantom tag in situations where safty is an issue, but why would we expect the defense to earn the out but then remove the expectation from the offense to earn the base?

I know not everyone is giddy about the FED. So noted. But unfortunately the FED is what governs the rules for the scholastic games we call. Until the FED actuall says to give a "safe" on a BR missing 1B, I've got nothing until the BR touches or the defense touches. I'm not looking for a loosing arguement from a coach for looking like I don't know what I'm doing (safe one moment, out the next??)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mroyal

If the BR leagally acquired the base, then he can't be put out.

False, even when the runner touches the base. For example: BR hits a safe single to right. He touches 1B (thereby legally acquiring it) and rounds the base as the throw comes in to F3 behind him. He is tagged off the base for an out.

A runner legally acquires a base by touching it or by passing near enough to it to reach it (arm's length). You don't seem to know this basic definition.

I think you're a troll.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by mbyron

False, even when the runner touches the base. For example: BR hits a safe single to right. He touches 1B (thereby legally acquiring it) and rounds the base as the throw comes in to F3 behind him. He is tagged off the base for an out.

A runner legally acquires a base by touching it or by passing near enough to it to reach it (arm's length). You don't seem to know this basic definition.

I think you're a troll.

Nice mbyron, but no I'm not a troll. I prefer the FED site, but since it's having issues, I took more time to read some posts here and found this one.

The FED manual says NOT to make a NON-VERBAL statement. So why would you persist in MAKING a non-verbal signal by signaling "safe?" I'm trying to understand the logic of not making a signal (FED) by making a signal (you).

[David B]

Originally Posted by mroyal

Nice mbyron, but no I'm not a troll. I prefer the FED site, but since it's having issues, I took more time to read some posts here and found this one.

The FED manual says NOT to make a NON-VERBAL statement. So why would you persist in MAKING a non-verbal signal by signaling "safe?" I'm trying to understand the logic of not making a signal (FED) by making a signal (you).

Maybe not a troll, but sounds like one. Or an umpire who might not understand the consequences of not making a call.

Close play at 1st, everyone is looking at the umpire, (you make the call out or safe). But wait, I'm not making a call, just standing there like a deer in the headlights.

Now, who has tipped the defense that there is a problem?

BR hits it in the gap and misses 1st on the way to 2B. You're not going to tell the defense he missed first. So why would an umpire want to tell them on the first situation.

R3 tags and comes home on sac fly, he misses the plate. PU signals ...

You make the call.

FED manual BTW is a waste of print, don't waste your time.

Thanks
David

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by David B

Maybe not a troll, but sounds like one. Or an umpire who might not understand the consequences of not making a call.

Close play at 1st, everyone is looking at the umpire, (you make the call out or safe). But wait, I'm not making a call, just standing there like a deer in the headlights.

Now, who has tipped the defense that there is a problem?

BR hits it in the gap and misses 1st on the way to 2B. You're not going to tell the defense he missed first. So why would an umpire want to tell them on the first situation.

R3 tags and comes home on sac fly, he misses the plate. PU signals ...

You make the call.

FED manual BTW is a waste of print, don't waste your time.

Thanks
David

David - I get paid to follow the FED rules. I'm not wasting my time by doing such.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mroyal

The FED manual says NOT to make a NON-VERBAL statement. So why would you persist in MAKING a non-verbal signal by signaling "safe?" I'm trying to understand the logic of not making a signal (FED) by making a signal (you).

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.

[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.

[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,

[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.....