How to "Call" a ball not caught

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I guess I am confused:

Why didn't you give a safe sign and voice, "No Catch."

Maybe others here will correct me.

Typically I don't even say catch. I give the safe sign and say "No!...No!" Although occasionally I do say "No Catch"

-Josh

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Typically I don't even say catch. I give the safe sign and say "No!...No!" Although occasionally I do say "No Catch"

-Josh

Go with Tim's suggestion and say "No Catch" it removes any doubt. Similar to potential interference/obstruction calls on a runner/fielder. It you don't have anything, go ahead and signal safe and say "That's nothing" so everyone knows. It saves you from having the players stop or delay their next action wondering if you were going to call something, and then the coaches go nuts because your silence contributed to the problem.

Better "safe" than sorry.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I thought the safe signal combined with the call of "no catch" was pretty basic Umpiring 101 for any close catch/no catch situation.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Go with Tim's suggestion and say "No Catch" it removes any doubt. Similar to potential interference/obstruction calls on a runner/fielder. It you don't have anything, go ahead and signal safe and say "That's nothing" so everyone knows. It saves you from having the players stop or delay their next action wondering if you were going to call something, and then the coaches go nuts because your silence contributed to the problem.

Better "safe" than sorry.

Are you saying to give the "safe" signal when you DON'T have obstruction/interference?

I've never heard of this.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Are you saying to give the "safe" signal when you DON'T have obstruction/interference?

I've never heard of this.

It tells the teams that you saw it and it's nothing.

[ozzy6900]

My, My! It seems that what some of us take for granted as the "basic teachings" of umpiring seem to have eluded many of the posters here. I am amazed because these signals (catch/no catch, action seen but no interference or obstruction) are taught in our clinics and must be mastered by our students. I know because I am the one that teaches these!

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Typically I don't even say catch. I give the safe sign and say "No!...No!" Although occasionally I do say "No Catch"

-Josh

Same here. I quit using the word 'catch' a few years ago because it sometimes caused confusion. I do not think I have anyone confused by a big safe sign and "NO!"

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Same here. I quit using the word 'catch' a few years ago because it sometimes caused confusion. I do not think I have anyone confused by a big safe sign and "NO!"

That's my take. If I don't have to say catch, then I don't. "No!..No!" gets the idea across.

-Josh

[zm1283]

I will never give the safe signal to signal I don't have obstruction or interference. Teach what you want and do what you want, but I've never heard that from anyone in my area. If I don't call it, it's pretty damn obvious that I don't think it's either of the two, so why would it be necessary to give a "safe" signal?

Is that taught at pro school?

[UmpJM]

zm1283,

Originally Posted by zm1283

I will never give the safe signal to signal I don't have obstruction or interference. ...

You might want to rethink that position.

Is that taught at pro school?

Yes.

It's not something you want to do all the time, but, on occasion, it's the best thing to do.

JM

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by zm1283

If I don't call it, it's pretty damn obvious that I don't think it's either of the two, so why would it be necessary to give a "safe" signal?

To prevent exactly what happened in the video with Francouer getting up and just standing there thinking the BR was out.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

To prevent exactly what happened in the video with Francouer getting up and just standing there thinking the BR was out.

I'm not talking about a "no catch" signal to show a ball wasn't caught. Everyone does that. We're talking about giving the "no catch" (safe) signal when you AREN'T going to call obstruction or interference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I will never give the safe signal to signal I don't have obstruction or interference. Teach what you want and do what you want, but I've never heard that from anyone in my area. If I don't call it, it's pretty damn obvious that I don't think it's either of the two, so why would it be necessary to give a "safe" signal?

It shows that you saw the play and made a ruling on it. If you don't signal anything, then the participants (might) think you aren't watching -- and that leads to a whole different discussion.

Be a leader in your area and start doing this.

[jwwashburn]

ZM, just because you have never heard of it does not mean that it should not be done.

Of course you should make this signal if there is a situation like those discussed.

[JPaco54]

It seems there are many mechanics that umps use for different circumstances. Are there not standards for mechanics? I thought there were and I thought I was applying them but sometimes I get confused when I read differing opinions on this forum.
1. Interference - Both hands up and vocal - Dead Ball
2. Obstruction - delayed dead ball - Left arm extended horizontally fist closed.
3. Caught ball - Out Signal - Vocal OUT (confused now, do we vocal CATCH)?
4. Dropped ball - No Signal - No vocal (Confused now - do we vocal NO CATCH? and Signal Safe).

I am assuming we must use some judgement on close calls for Catch No Catch...but I also believe that different mechanics cause confusion with players and coaches...Do we use signals as we feel comfortable with?

I also am assuming that different assoications may have some preferred mechanics that they insist on. I thought this umpiring stuff was easy?