pointing at home?

[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.