pointing at home?

[jwwashburn]

I have never been taught that one.

Is that a pro mechanic?

Why isn't that tipping the hand in a situation where the runner misses home and there is no pointing?

[tmagan]

That mechanic could also be used if a fielder blocked the runner from touching the base/plate, and the umpire subsequently awarded the runner the base/plate.

[jwwashburn]

Not at home plate in the majors

[jwwashburn]

By the way, this plate umpire does something else that I cannot recall ever seeing in the bigs...He stares at his "clicker" after a batter.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Not at home plate in the majors

Not always true, and in fact this is possibly the answer here. You're right that in MLB, the obstruction rule at home plate is completely different than what we're used to. However, if the ball gets away as in this case, you CAN have obstruction on the catcher.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not always true, and in fact this is possibly the answer here. You're right that in MLB, the obstruction rule at home plate is completely different than what we're used to. However, if the ball gets away as in this case, you CAN have obstruction on the catcher.

I guess you're right. However, I have never seen or heard of that call happening in MLB

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by tmagan

That mechanic could also be used if a fielder blocked the runner from touching the base/plate, and the umpire subsequently awarded the runner the base/plate.

Really?

[tmagan]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Not at home plate in the majors

Originally Posted by jicecone

Really?

Meant to say if the fielder blocks the plate/bag without possession of the baseball.

By the way, no one points at home plate more than Jim Joyce.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I have never been taught that one.

Is that a pro mechanic?

Why isn't that tipping the hand in a situation where the runner misses home and there is no pointing?

He's calling "got the plate" just like he'd call an out if there was a good tag. No call means nothing happened. In this case something did and he called it.

And on a swipe tag at a base you'll see them point at the tag and give the out call.

They point often. No big deal.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Why isn't that tipping the hand in a situation where the runner misses home and there is no pointing?

Pointing is a faux pas when a runner scores with no play at the plate, because when the umpire fails to point, it screams, "He never touched it!"

But you're describing a different situation in which there is a play, and the umpire sees that the runner scored. The by-the-book mechanic would simply be a Safe signal; it sounds like this PU just used the point instead, which is a little unorthodox.

Remember, on a banger play at the plate where the runner touches home, and the catcher either tags him late or misses the tag completely, the umpire signals Safe. If the runner misses home and the catcher misses the tag, the umpire gives no signal. There is no "tipping" here, so I don't see where a "point" or "no point" under this particular circumstance is any different.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Pointing is a faux pas when a runner scores with no play at the plate, because when the umpire fails to point, it screams, "He never touched it!"

But you're describing a different situation in which there is a play, and the umpire sees that the runner scored. The by-the-book mechanic would simply be a Safe signal; it sounds like this PU just used the point instead, which is a little unorthodox.

Remember, on a banger play at the plate where the runner touches home, and the catcher either tags him late or misses the tag completely, the umpire signals Safe. If the runner misses home and the catcher misses the tag, the umpire gives no signal. There is no "tipping" here, so I don't see where a "point" or "no point" under this particular circumstance is any different.

There was no play. The throw barely touched the catcher's glove and the runner touched almost all of the plate. Folks across the street could see he touched it.

I agree, I think this point on this type of play for this umpire(if it is his typical move) does indeed set up a scenario when the next guy misses the plate with no point.

[etn_ump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Pointing is a faux pas when a runner scores with no play at the plate, because when the umpire fails to point, it screams, "He never touched it!"

But you're describing a different situation in which there is a play, and the umpire sees that the runner scored. The by-the-book mechanic would simply be a Safe signal; it sounds like this PU just used the point instead, which is a little unorthodox.

Remember, on a banger play at the plate where the runner touches home, and the catcher either tags him late or misses the tag completely, the umpire signals Safe. If the runner misses home and the catcher misses the tag, the umpire gives no signal. There is no "tipping" here, so I don't see where a "point" or "no point" under this particular circumstance is any different.

Pointing, in this instance, I think, indicates the umpire had a "touch" of HP. That tells the catcher that he does not need to try and tag the runner because the runner "touched" HP.

And as far as "tipping" a play goes, when you make NO call, aren't you tipping the defense? The no call mechanic is the correct mechanic and does what it is supposed to do, namely, tell the offense and defense there has been no tag and no touch of the base.