How to "Call" a ball not caught

[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.

[DG]

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.

Not me. I believe I would have.

[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.

[DG]

I was not trained to give a safe signal to indicate no obstruction or interference, so I don't, I just call it when I see it and give no sign when I am not going to call. So I am interested in other's training/point of view.

I was trained to signal Safe, No Catch, on a skipper.. so I do.

[Steven Tyler]

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!"

Unless you have marbles in your mouth there shouldn't be any confusion.

They should be able to read a safe signal and the words "no catch" if done properly.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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.

The mechanic is taught for use only when it might appear to some as obstruction or interference, not for use on ordinary plays where there is not the slightest chance of obstruction or interference. If a play is one that looks a bit odd, and could lead to either team squawking about a no call, the correct procedure is to signal "safe" and say "that's nothing."

[johnnyg08]

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!"

I got into a bit of rhubarb this year too saying "no CATCH" I no longer use the word "catch" anymore...runner simply hear "Catch" and we get into trouble...it didn't affect the game, but my words did make a difference in that particular play. Now I either say nothing and signal or as somebody else stated..."No, No"

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Unless you have marbles in your mouth there shouldn't be any confusion.

They should be able to read a safe signal and the words "no catch" if done properly.

I did not say that there SHOULD be confusion. I said that sometimes there IS confusion. I speak extremely clearly and loudly on the field yet sometimes people have only heard the word catch. I think there is no reason to use two words when one gets the point across just as clearly (and possibly more clearly)

I know you were attempting to insult me but, I won't bother with that. You still think that Aerosmith is cool and that is sad.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I know you were attempting to insult me but, I won't bother with that. You still think that Aerosmith is cool and that is sad.

Aerosmith: Very cool

Pretending you are a member of Aerosmith: Not cool

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Aerosmith: Very cool

Pretending you are a member of Aerosmith: Not cool

Very wrong on the latter.
Very right on the former.

I mean...c'mon....This is not cool, this is pathetic.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Very wrong on the latter.
Very right on the former.

I mean...c'mon....This is not cool, this is pathetic.

Not one of his best photos, granted. But the music is timeless, Aerosmith still rocks hard, and they are one of my Top 10 all-time favorite bands, so I still consider them, as a group, to be very cool.

[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.