Eager Partner?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

Y'What the NCAA manual has in it is when in a rundown or situation where your partner is calling you off but you cant look over to him/her to let them know you heard them then touch your ear closest to that umpire that is calling you off. This is a low profile signal that you and your partners can use for communication. '

Thats terrible. You dont need a secret signal.. Rundowns are not rocket surgery. If you are boxing the play and you just say "I got 3" or whatever, then your partner SHOULD know that if the play is in that direction, its yours, if its in his direction, say 2, its his. You dont need to touch your ears or do top secret stuff, just speak. A good partner hears and understands what it means and knows what to do. I got other things to do that to watch an umpire to see if he his touching his ear. If I scratch my @ss in response, that means, speak, so I know what the heck you are doing.

[Al]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Thats terrible. You dont need a secret signal.. Rundowns are not rocket surgery. If you are boxing the play and you just say "I got 3" or whatever, then your partner SHOULD know that if the play is in that direction, its yours, if its in his direction, say 2, its his. You dont need to touch your ears or do top secret stuff, just speak. A good partner hears and understands what it means and knows what to do. I got other things to do that to watch an umpire to see if he his touching his ear. If I scratch my @ss in response, that means, speak, so I know what the heck you are doing.

That last line says it all ...Funny stuff! Fun at the ole' ball park! ...Al

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Thats terrible. You dont need a secret signal.. Rundowns are not rocket surgery. If you are boxing the play and you just say "I got 3" or whatever, then your partner SHOULD know that if the play is in that direction, its yours, if its in his direction, say 2, its his. You dont need to touch your ears or do top secret stuff, just speak. A good partner hears and understands what it means and knows what to do. I got other things to do that to watch an umpire to see if he his touching his ear. If I scratch my @ss in response, that means, speak, so I know what the heck you are doing.

First of all its not secret if you pre-game... second of all you are communicatiing with your partner. I have worked wiht a guy who wears hearing aids and cant here all that well so when you scream Ive got third he mau\y not here you. Third of all that signal allows your partner to keep their eyes on the action and let you know that he/she knows youve came down to help. Also what if you cant here them respond. now you have no signal no verbal and you sir are Fd because you dont know what your partner is doing and you dont know what you should be doing because you have to react to your partner in that situation. Also you knowing what you should be doing is great and the key to setting up success but your partner not knowing or even if your partner knows and doesnt let you know you are still screwed. BTW that ear thing is in the NCAA manual not NFHS so I am not saying go and do it and that mechanic was put in the manual by Ed Crane and Emily Alexander along with the other people in the national umpire improvement program Who really know what is good and what is not good. The low profile thing is like the same with asking for outs and giving the response in NCAA its done on the pants as to keep your arms in and not be signaling to god and everybody that you have two outs. The ear thing is not the only communication that should be done but it is CERTAINLY a helper.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Thats terrible. You dont need a secret signal.. Rundowns are not rocket surgery. If you are boxing the play and you just say "I got 3" or whatever, then your partner SHOULD know that if the play is in that direction, its yours, if its in his direction, say 2, its his. You dont need to touch your ears or do top secret stuff, just speak. A good partner hears and understands what it means and knows what to do. I got other things to do that to watch an umpire to see if he his touching his ear. If I scratch my @ss in response, that means, speak, so I know what the heck you are doing.

So, am I to understand that now you don't believe in umpire to umpire signals for communication? You know, things like holding your hand to your left chest to indicate IFR being in effect, or wiping it away with your right hand to your left forearm? All this is is another umpire to umpire signal. If you are too busy yourself to notice it, then that is okay. But at least you were replied back to. There are all kinds of umpire to umpire signals that are "approved" signals. I don't see a problem with using them.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

So, am I to understand that now you don't believe in umpire to umpire signals for communication? You know, things like holding your hand to your left chest to indicate IFR being in effect, or wiping it away with your right hand to your left forearm? All this is is another umpire to umpire signal. If you are too busy yourself to notice it, then that is okay. But at least you were replied back to. There are all kinds of umpire to umpire signals that are "approved" signals. I don't see a problem with using them.

How did you leap from "Thats terrible. You dont need a secret signal" to "you don't believe in umpire to umpire signals for communication"?

When I read that, I understood him to mean that a secret signal is not required for a rundown. And I have to agree; in the middle of the action, a signal like touching your ear seems far too easy to miss. A simple verbal response would work better, imo.

But when there is no action, the standard umpire-to-umpire signals are certainly appropriate. That's completely different from what was being discussed.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by celebur

How did you leap from "Thats terrible. You dont need a secret signal" to "you don't believe in umpire to umpire signals for communication"?

When I read that, I understood him to mean that a secret signal is not required for a rundown. And I have to agree; in the middle of the action, a signal like touching your ear seems far too easy to miss. A simple verbal response would work better, imo.

But when there is no action, the standard umpire-to-umpire signals are certainly appropriate. That's completely different from what was being discussed.

You should read my post, and quote the entire thing, instead of just the part that you deem necessary. If you had, you would notice I was asking a question, to make a point. Yes. As I have stated, many of these signals go unnoticed. However, we still continue to use them. I don't believe I have ever stated whether or not I agree with this particular signal at all. What I did state is, it is the recommended signal for NCAA, and being such, I will use it when I call their games.

In the NCAA they advise using this signal. Absolutely nothing secret about it. It is in print in the CCA Umpire's Manual. Same as the other umpire to umpire communication signals. So, this is exactly what is being discussed. Not, as you stated (and that can be seen by the fact that I quoted you completely above) something "completely different."

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

You should read my post, and quote the entire thing, instead of just the part that you deem necessary. If you had, you would notice I was asking a question, to make a point.

OK, here's the question you 'posed' (both of them):

So, am I to understand that now you don't believe in umpire to umpire signals for communication? You know, things like holding your hand to your left chest to indicate IFR being in effect, or wiping it away with your right hand to your left forearm?

That seems like a pair of rhetorical questions designed to hyperbolize the other poster's statement. In other words, it was a strawman, and that is what I was focusing on. That you phrased it as a question is irrelvant. And if I misread it, then I apologize. But after rereading it, I still take it the same way.

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Yes. As I have stated, many of these signals go unnoticed. However, we still continue to use them. I don't believe I have ever stated whether or not I agree with this particular signal at all. What I did state is, it is the recommended signal for NCAA, and being such, I will use it when I call their games.

No, you didn't come right out and definitively state your position on whether or not you agree with this particular signal. But you did jump all over those who deigned to say that they didn't like it.

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

In the NCAA they advise using this signal. Absolutely nothing secret about it. It is in print in the CCA Umpire's Manual. Same as the other umpire to umpire communication signals. So, this is exactly what is being discussed. Not, as you stated (and that can be seen by the fact that I quoted you completely above) something "completely different."

No, the other umpire-to-umpire signals that you used for your hyperbolic comparison were the ones for the IFR. Those are used when there is a lull in the action; thus they can reasonably be expected to be seen and understood. The signal in question here is touching one's ear during the play. These are completely different situations, and the IFR signals really are NOT exactly what is being discussed.

One can agree with the IFR signals and not agree with the ear touching and still be consistent. Because they're, you know, different. Completely.

Note, however, that I do not criticize someone who uses that ear signal. As you say, it's an approved mechanic (at least for NCAA). I just don't happen to see value in it, especially when one's eyes are better used to follow the play rather than your partner.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by celebur

OK, here's the question you 'posed' (both of them):



That seems like a pair of rhetorical questions designed to hyperbolize the other poster's statement. In other words, it was a strawman, and that is what I was focusing on. That you phrased it as a question is irrelvant. And if I misread it, then I apologize. But after rereading it, I still take it the same way.




No, you didn't come right out and definitively state your position on whether or not you agree with this particular signal. But you did jump all over those who deigned to say that they didn't like it.




No, the other umpire-to-umpire signals that you used for your hyperbolic comparison were the ones for the IFR. Those are used when there is a lull in the action; thus they can reasonably be expected to be seen and understood. The signal in question here is touching one's ear during the play. These are completely different situations, and the IFR signals really are NOT exactly what is being discussed.

One can agree with the IFR signals and not agree with the ear touching and still be consistent. Because they're, you know, different. Completely.

Note, however, that I do not criticize someone who uses that ear signal. As you say, it's an approved mechanic (at least for NCAA). I just don't happen to see value in it, especially when one's eyes are better used to follow the play rather than your partner.

Apparently you are still missing the intent of my posts. Yet, I can think of nothing else to make you understand. You are obviously committed to the belief that I was jumping "all over those who deigned to say they didn't like it." I have "jumped all over" no one, and that statement on your part is the only hyperbole I see in this discussion. I was merely supporting, originally, the stance of kcg NC2Ablu who made mention that the signal, which for the record I am not a fan of, is a legitimate signal as far as NCAA mechanics go. Wade had said he didn't need any secret signals, so I was informing him, in my way, that this is in fact not a "secret signal," but an approved mechanic so far as the NCAA goes. This is "proper" umpire to umpire communication.

Now insofar as your statement, "Note, however, that I do not criticize someone who uses that ear signal. As you say, it's an approved mechanic (at least for NCAA)," the following would seem to be contradictory:

Originally Posted by celebur

Or how about:

U1: Partner, everything by the book.
U2: (touches ear).

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Apparently you are still missing the intent of my posts. Yet, I can think of nothing else to make you understand.

Actually, you just did it (see below).

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

You are obviously committed to the belief that I was jumping "all over those who deigned to say they didn't like it." I have "jumped all over" no one, and that statement on your part is the only hyperbole I see in this discussion. I was merely supporting, originally, the stance of kcg NC2Ablu who made mention that the signal, which for the record I am not a fan of, is a legitimate signal as far as NCAA mechanics go. Wade had said he didn't need any secret signals, so I was informing him, in my way, that this is in fact not a "secret signal," but an approved mechanic so far as the NCAA goes. This is "proper" umpire to umpire communication.

My apologies for both missing your point and making you explain it (and also my thanks that you did explain it).

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Now insofar as your statement, "Note, however, that I do not criticize someone who uses that ear signal. As you say, it's an approved mechanic (at least for NCAA)," the following would seem to be contradictory:

That was levity. Nothing more.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

So, am I to understand that now you don't believe in umpire to umpire signals for communication?

No, you should understand I dont believe in dumb signals when verbal communication works just fine or better. Ive worked with many of you college guys and you do this collar thing for good call and all this lame stuff. Its just dumb. IFR or "gimme the count" and some other stuff are fine.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

No, you should understand I dont believe in dumb signals when verbal communication works just fine or better. Ive worked with many of you college guys and you do this collar thing for good call and all this lame stuff. Its just dumb. IFR or "gimme the count" and some other stuff are fine.

What the hell is the "collar thing?" Apparently, not an approved signal, as I have never seen or heard of it. I still haven't weighed in with my opinion on the response signal for someone coming up to cover the other end of the play, just stated that it is in fact a legitimate, approved signal in the NCAA. Therefore, it is no different than any other approved umpire to umpire signal in any other code.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

No, you should understand I dont believe in dumb signals when verbal communication works just fine or better. Ive worked with many of you college guys and you do this collar thing for good call and all this lame stuff. Its just dumb. IFR or "gimme the count" and some other stuff are fine.

And playing devil's advocate here, why not just yell at your partner, "the infield fly rule is on," or "what do you have for a count," (which I believe is still the recommended ASA way) instead of using signals? Don't you think that when these signals came into being, some umpire, somewhere, was saying "I am not going to use these signals, they are just dumb?"

Obviously, though, enough umpires accepted the change and applied them, and they have now become the accepted norm.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

And playing devil's advocate here, why not just yell at your partner, "the infield fly rule is on," or "what do you have for a count," (which I believe is still the recommended ASA way) instead of using signals? Don't you think that when these signals came into being, some umpire, somewhere, was saying "I am not going to use these signals, they are just dumb?"

Obviously, though, enough umpires accepted the change and applied them, and they have now become the accepted norm.

Speaking ASA

Asking for the count if eye contact doesn't work, but the IFR is still a right hand to the chest.

However, I do not understand why you would need to compliment your partner on a "good call". What does it mean if you forget to execute the "collar thing"? Does that mean you disagree with the call?

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

No, you should understand I dont believe in dumb signals when verbal communication works just fine or better. Ive worked with many of you college guys and you do this collar thing for good call and all this lame stuff. Its just dumb. IFR or "gimme the count" and some other stuff are fine.

So just to go down the slippery slope here if some signals are dumb but others are fine... do you pick and choose which rules to apply based on what you think is dumb ... we enforce all the rules for a reason those signals are all used for a reason

[LMan]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

So just to go down the slippery slope here if some signals are dumb but others are fine... do you pick and choose which rules to apply based on what you think is dumb ... we enforce all the rules for a reason those signals are all used for a reason

That slope is so slippery, it doesn't exist.

Rules =/= signals..its apples and oranges. Many different umpires can legitimately differ/express preferences over signals, but ignoring rules is an entirely separate matter.