Originally Posted by jimpiano

Well, you cited page 225 so:

It defines NO "non verbal dead ball call" but adds "followed by a verbal or strike call".

So your question "Isn't that obvious " begs an answer.

Do you have one?

And, for the last time, why should stealing be denied just because the ball did not cross the plate?

You can feel free to give us an opinion regardless of the thinkning of ASA.
You are an umpire I presume, not a clone.

Originally Posted by JPRempe

Is pitched ball live when it hits the dirt in front of home plate for the batter? In other words, can he "cricket" the ball down the left field line after the ball has bounced?

Originally Posted by Fozzie

Page 222 does not "define" dead ball signals. It does however does give a lot of information on dead ball situations. And when the book says "come up with a good dead ball signal" I think they mean come out of your set position and excute a nice crisp dead ball signal. And NOT permission to make up your own signal.

Page 264 gives you what that signal should look like. With pictures and everything.

As for the second part of you post. Prehaps the simple answer is the crazy bounces the ball can take before it reaches the plate or when it hits the plate or its edge. But that would make sense so I am most likely wrong.

Jeff Merriman

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Okay. We need those kind of calls to simply say the ball did not reach home plate? Nothing simpler? Don't you think that is a little bit of overkil for signalling to a base runner that the ball is dead?

And if we are going to have stealing, why should the offense get a break for not being able to get a ball over the plate?

Just asking.

Originally Posted by Fozzie

Simpler? I'm raising my hands in the air, seems fairly easy even for a slowpitch guy. Overkill?...No I don't think so. Not with some of these players take off on anything. And last but not least its the way we signal dead ball at all other times in the game.

Should the DEFENSE get a break for not putting the ball over the plate? Heck I guess having a ball called on the batter is a break.

Jeff Merriman

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The OP asked for opinions on improvements on mechanics. I think I stated mine as to the need for a more subtle non verbal call to a runner on a dead ball negating an option to steal.

While I misidentified the DEFENSE regarding a ball short of the plate, my question still stands: Why is a called ball short of the plate different than a called ball over the plate as regards stealing?

Originally Posted by Fozzie

Okay. In short.

No I don't think there is any need for any rule or mechanics change.

Jeff Merriman

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Page 222 in defining dead ball signals leaves it up to the umpire to "come up with a good dead ball signal".

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The present mechinac is so simple and easy to perform and comprehend, at least for some people,

Originally Posted by jimpiano

No, the ball is dead.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Jeff,

you are correct. The present mechinac is so simple and easy to perform and comprehend, at least for some people, that there is no need for change.

And anyone knows that a ball which hits in front of or on the plate is not safely available to the catcher to continue play, so it is ruled dead.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

For all but one, Mike.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

And a ball hitting the plate is a safety problem for stealing?

Originally Posted by reccer

Just guessing, because its been 15 years since I played or watched SP, but is the safety issue the catcher reaching for those balls that are landing short with concerns that the batter is also swinging?

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Can the batter hit a ball that has bounced in front of or on the plate?



Wow!! Answered the question, correctly, even, not the usual attempt to act like the question has no point. Still doesn't get it!!

The ball is dead; so, why again would you think the runners should be allowed to steal?

Sure seems simple to me, too.