missed 1st base mechanic

[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,

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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."

[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."