"Over the batter's head"?!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

No, but that is where the bat does not make contact with the ball. If the bat makes contact with the ball, the lack of a verbal detracts from the call. I believe it does not show certainty in the call, even if the PU gives an immediate visual signal. It's almost like it's a half call. A foul tip is not an "obvious call" to everyone in the stands and on the field, which is why we often give no verbal on certain calls like obvious foul balls or, in your example, a swinging strike,

We verbalize a called strike (when the batter doesn't swing). We even verbalize a called ball. Why are we not verbalizing a foul tip for a strike? How would verbalizing "strike" on a foul tip detract from the game?

I will state this for the umpteenth time, batters and runners have a tendency to stop when they hear anything out of an umpire's mouth EVEN WHEN IT IS "SAFE". The idea of no verbal is to not interupt play. In this case, the first sound out of your mouth would be "foul" and I guarantee that is all they will hear.

Even if you give a verbal, odss are you will still need to explain what just happened.

I don't think it is necessary and would just muck up the waters that much more. When they argue, cut them off and ask if they would like to protest your call, sign the book and move on.

How did we make it this far without any issues by not verbalizing a foul tip?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I will state this for the umpteenth time, batters and runners have a tendency to stop when they hear anything out of an umpire's mouth EVEN WHEN IT IS "SAFE". The idea of no verbal is to not interupt play. In this case, the first sound out of your mouth would be "foul" and I guarantee that is all they will hear.

Even if you give a verbal, odss are you will still need to explain what just happened.

I don't think it is necessary and would just muck up the waters that much more. When they argue, cut them off and ask if they would like to protest your call, sign the book and move on.

How did we make it this far without any issues by not verbalizing a foul tip?

Even when you've got a runner stealing on the pitch, we still verbalize a strike that wasn't swung at, don't we? Does the runner stop?

Either way, we've got calls that we verbalize, and those we don't. I just think it might clear some things up if we actually verbalize "strike" on the hammer. Guess we just disagree. I'll still do it the ASA way until it changes (if it ever changes).

[Steve M]

I've been moving to the other end of the spectrum on a foul tip. I see little value in a signal that there was a foul tip. There's no verbal - it's a live ball - runners stealing are going to go until they hear something from me.

[topper]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I've been moving to the other end of the spectrum on a foul tip. I see little value in a signal that there was a foul tip. There's no verbal - it's a live ball - runners stealing are going to go until they hear something from me.

One value would be to let anyone who may have heard the contact know that you heard/saw it and it was a foul tip and not catcher's obstruction.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by topper

One value would be to let anyone who may have heard the contact know that you heard/saw it and it was a foul tip and not catcher's obstruction.

I'm looking at that as having minimal value. Should there be CO, I've got a call to make and they'll know by the call what I have.

[topper]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I'm looking at that as having minimal value. Should there be CO, I've got a call to make and they'll know by the call what I have.

Do you give a safe signal when a runner nearly contacts a fielder or the ball? If so, why?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Do you give a safe signal when a runner nearly contacts a fielder or the ball? If so, why?

And I was soooo trying to avoid heading back in this direction...

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by topper

Do you give a safe signal when a runner nearly contacts a fielder or the ball? If so, why?

Yes, I do. And that's the right thing to do. It's very much like the "play on" verbal in a different game.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by topper

One value would be to let anyone who may have heard the contact know that you heard/saw it and it was a foul tip and not catcher's obstruction.

Don't we have a signal for that and a verbal as well?

Why don't players understand that if I want you to stop, I'll tell you. If I don't tell you, play on!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

Don't we have a signal for that and a verbal as well?

Which, IMO, shouldn't exist either. When Fed went to a verbal on OBS, the first two OBS I had that year, I verbalized and the girls looked at me instead of playing on. Since then, I just will not do it.

Like the foul tip, the play is to continue as if the violation never occurred and you deal with it afterward. Don't remember the last time someone started to complain about "interference" (OBS) and someone else didn't say, "he's got it, look at the arm" or something to that effect.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I've been moving to the other end of the spectrum on a foul tip. I see little value in a signal that there was a foul tip. There's no verbal - it's a live ball - runners stealing are going to go until they hear something from me.

I'm with Steve on this one...I just don't see the value of the "foul tip" signal. It's treated the same as a swinging strike and, usually, everybody knows that the batter swung.

I think this is leaking over from baseball but I tend to agree with not having a signal for a foul tip and just using the hammer to indicate a strike.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm with Steve on this one...I just don't see the value of the "foul tip" signal. It's treated the same as a swinging strike and, usually, everybody knows that the batter swung.

I think this is leaking over from baseball but I tend to agree with not having a signal for a foul tip and just using the hammer to indicate a strike.

But, it's such a cool signal!

[topper]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm with Steve on this one...I just don't see the value of the "foul tip" signal. It's treated the same as a swinging strike and, usually, everybody knows that the batter swung.

I think this is leaking over from baseball but I tend to agree with not having a signal for a foul tip and just using the hammer to indicate a strike.

If "everybody knows that the batter swung", using your and others' logic, why give a hammer?

I'd be willing to bet that many college umpires who argue against the foul tip signal now would have argued for it back when it was part of the collegate manual. Funny how these things go.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Even when you've got a runner stealing on the pitch, we still verbalize a strike that wasn't swung at, don't we? Does the runner stop?

Yeah, 90'+ away. I call a strike for those around the plate, not the field. THAT is why there are signals.

Either way, we've got calls that we verbalize, and those we don't. I just think it might clear some things up if we actually verbalize "strike" on the hammer. Guess we just disagree. I'll still do it the ASA way until it changes (if it ever changes).[/quote]

A foul tip is handled the same as a swinging strike. The reason is that other than a slight sound, the fact that the ball had been hit is barely distinguishable.