When do you finally eject "that coach" who knows how to toe the line?

[Altor]

I'm confused by encounter #1. Why would the DC argue an out call?

[CecilOne]

#1 & #2 are plays that can often be questioned by coaches, and I expect them to work for their team.

In #3, it probably invites debate when no signal is given, but the "you can't see the ball from there" might have ended his presence.

If a coach is just baiting, or trying to influence the next, a sterner warning might be appropriate.

Saying "I'm not going for help to start with is just giving an opening, especially with that being his criteria about umpires.

As to your post-game question, no one moment was enough, but your reading of the coach's motive might have been enough.

In a coaches allowed to rate umps situation , I would wonder if the coach really questioned your ability or was just seeing how strong you are. Never know.

[jmkupka]

My side question about situation #2... is the no-tag, no-touch, no-call mechanic the same as is required at the plate?

While I've never had it happen out at the bases, I do come up with a firm "NO TAG" immediately, of course staying with the play for a potential overslide.

I don't think the delay (other than the ordinary hesistation-timing we should use) is appropriate other than at the plate...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I don't think the delay (other than the ordinary hesistation-timing we should use) is appropriate other than at the plate...

Why not?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

My side question about situation #2... is the no-tag, no-touch, no-call mechanic the same as is required at the plate?

While I've never had it happen out at the bases, I do come up with a firm "NO TAG" immediately, of course staying with the play for a potential overslide.

I don't think the delay (other than the ordinary hesistation-timing we should use) is appropriate other than at the plate...

I don't know that anyone answered your question. But typically at second and third base when you have a missed tag and a runner who misses the base, one or both players are going to make the immediate correction to fix the mistake, so you won't have to worry about a delayed Safe signal. You just don't want to give a quick Safe call because you could end up following that with an immediate Out call if the fielder makes the subsequent tag before the runner can correct herself. The "Safe, No, Out!" call doesn't look good.

At home plate, that's a different situation because the runner may head to the dugout after oversliding and not touching the plate, and not bother to fix it. So a delayed Safe call provides some closure on the play, because the runner is considered Safe at that point, but is still subject to appeal.

[jmkupka]

I think an "Out! No, Safe!" when the ball is mishandled is much, much worse.

But I understand your point Manny. I'm thinking in terms of a similar situation where F4 fields a grounder (or an offline throw from F2), then reaches for a sweep tag on the runner coming into 2B.

Doesn't it look better to acknowledge the missed tag, and then if there is an overslide (or miss) of the base, sell the subsequent tagout?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I think an "Out! No, Safe!" when the ball is mishandled is much, much worse.

But I understand your point Manny. I'm thinking in terms of a similar situation where F4 fields a grounder (or an offline throw from F2), then reaches for a sweep tag on the runner coming into 2B.

Doesn't it look better to acknowledge the missed tag, and then if there is an overslide (or miss) of the base, sell the subsequent tagout?

No, it doesn't.

The runner is still in jeopardy of being retired when off the base. Additionally, signaling the no tag is taking your focus from the rest of the play. Watch the play until the conclusion and make the call.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I think an "Out! No, Safe!" when the ball is mishandled is much, much worse.

But I understand your point Manny. I'm thinking in terms of a similar situation where F4 fields a grounder (or an offline throw from F2), then reaches for a sweep tag on the runner coming into 2B.

Doesn't it look better to acknowledge the missed tag, and then if there is an overslide (or miss) of the base, sell the subsequent tagout?

IMHO, no. If things happen so quickly in between, you're going to be waving and punching your arms almost simultaneously, and might fall down in the process!

I actually had something very similar happen to me in a HS game last week. I'm the BU (two man), and there was a ground ball to F6. Her throw to first was a little off-line. F3 tried to stretch and stay on the bag, so my focus was down on her foot. I saw her lose contact with the bag when she caught the ball, and I started to give my Off the Bag signal. But she had the presence of mind to tag the BR just before the BR touched, and I almost missed it because I was too intent on seeing F3's foot. So I did an "Off the Bag, Point, Call 'Tag', then Punch" mechanic that you won't find in any Umpire Manual. It was awful.

[jmkupka]

Not to get the last word (respect all of your opinions too much for that), but do you not agree that there is a point before the bag, where the missed tag should be acknowledged?

I think up to now you've been thinking in terms of a quality throw from F2, but a no-tag at the base. In that case, our normal hesitation, until the dust settles, is what avoids the feeling of a double-call.

But an off-line throw from F2, or a grounder, whatever, that causes a missed sweep tag before the bag, I feel calls for a firm "No Tag", and a safe signal.

We're usually the only ones who see that little bit of daylight between glove and runner. If we wait till the subsequent tag on an overslide, ESPECIALLY if the runner gets back in time, DC's gonna want to know why the out wasn't called on the first tag.

I think "no tag" then looks even worse...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I actually had something very similar happen to me in a HS game last week. I'm the BU (two man), and there was a ground ball to F6. Her throw to first was a little off-line. F3 tried to stretch and stay on the bag, so my focus was down on her foot. I saw her lose contact with the bag when she caught the ball, and I started to give my Off the Bag signal.

You have an "off the bag" signal?

But she had the presence of mind to tag the BR just before the BR touched, and I almost missed it because I was too intent on seeing F3's foot. So I did an "Off the Bag, Point, Call 'Tag', then Punch" mechanic that you won't find in any Umpire Manual. It was awful.

How about, "On the tag, out" with a nice sell out and a point if you believe it is necessary?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Altor

I'm confused by encounter #1. Why would the DC argue an out call?

Typo. Good catch. I will fix it.

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

And it’s a common saying in basketball: you never regret the T’s you give but almost always regret the ones you didn’t. Sounds like you got that happening right now.

Yeah...I know this saying. In fact, here I am tonight regretting an an EJ I didn't make in a JC game today. Batter strikes out swinging, spikes the end of the bat into the ground (not hard enough for an equipment misuse ejection though) and says "What the F---!?!". Our conference has a no "audible by fans, coaches, or other players" F-bomb sportsmanship rule, and I wienered out on the player ejection. I only gave a warning, thinking that the comment was quiet enough. Nope: my partner behind the second baseman heard it too, and wondered why I didn't eject. The word + the bat spike should have been automatic and I whiffed on it completely.

Time for a hearing test, maybe.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Our conference has a no "audible by fans, coaches, or other players" F-bomb sportsmanship rule, and I wienered out on the player ejection. I only gave a warning, thinking that the comment was quiet enough. Nope: my partner behind the second baseman heard it too, and wondered why I didn't eject. The word + the bat spike should have been automatic and I whiffed on it completely.

Time for a hearing test, maybe.

To my point a few replies ago... You're not the only one that might hear the magic word. You heard it just fine, which means you probably don't need a hearing test.

But if your partner heard it, a lot of players, coaches, and fans probably heard it as well.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

To my point a few replies ago... You're not the only one that might hear the magic word. You heard it just fine, which means you probably don't need a hearing test.

But if your partner heard it, a lot of players, coaches, and fans probably heard it as well.

And I really wouldn't care unless it is specifically directed at an umpire or another participant. I've got more important things to do than be the language police

[LRZ]

But we officials are charged with enforcing sportsmanship rules.

Years ago, when I started umpiring (baseball), I worked the local Catholic HS league. We were taught, somewhat facetiously, to say to a kid who cursed, "Son, I don't mind that kind of language, but my partner is a priest, and it really upsets him."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by LRZ

We were taught, somewhat facetiously, to say to a kid who cursed, "Son, I don't mind that kind of language, but my partner is a priest, and it really upsets him."