NCAA - Status of ball mechanic

[argodad]

Originally Posted by Dakota

IMO, the main advantage to the "point at first touch" version is for the umpire (especially inexperienced umpires). It helps them keep the priorities straight. Fair/foul first, catch/no catch second. I'd guess that is why ASA adopted the mechanic. (Just a guess, though.)

That's what I like about the ASA mechanic. Even with 16 years experience, it reminds me of my first priority. For college games, I whisper fair or foul to myself before giving the out, fair, or dead ball signal. (Well, I WILL whisper it when I return to the field next year.)

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by argodad

That's what I like about the ASA mechanic. Even with 16 years experience, it reminds me of my first priority. For college games, I whisper fair or foul to myself before giving the out, fair, or dead ball signal. (Well, I WILL whisper it when I return to the field next year.)

Healing well, I hope.

[Skahtboi]

I am in the same school as Steve. I am a "no point" person, and have really never seen the need for it. Mentally I can prioritize without demonstrating to the rest of the world that I am doing so.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

I am in the same school as Steve. I am a "no point" person, and have really never seen the need for it. Mentally I can prioritize without demonstrating to the rest of the world that I am doing so.

In full and open agreement here. If it is fair, you are pointing anyway. If foul, the mechanic is redundant. To me, killing the play should be the priority because if it is dead, no one really cares if you pointed foul prior to the dead ball signal. What are you going to do, point fair and then signal "dead ball"? Or maybe point foul and call nothing!

And if it is caught, who cares what side of the line it was on? It is an out, end of story.

Also, I don't buy the "status of the ball" BS for a second. I have been told by a RUIC that you determine the status of the ball in the air prior to the play. Huh?!?!

By the time you see the catch or ball land, you point and by the time you come with the hammer, the ball is back in the circle.

The ONLY time a point may be necesarry or advantageous to the participants is on a bobbled ball. Then I will point even though by the time I do, any runners will be halfway to the next base.

[Dakota]

Here is the rationale I have heard from a couple of clinicians on this, and it applies to new or inexperienced umpires. By the time you (as the new and inexperienced umpire) realize the ball is NOT caught, it is too late to see where the ball was first touched. So, it helps the (new and inexperienced) umpire focus first on where the ball is when first touched. If it is caught, it doesn't matter where it was.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Here is the rationale I have heard from a couple of clinicians on this, and it applies to new or inexperienced umpires. By the time you (as the new and inexperienced umpire) realize the ball is NOT caught, it is too late to see where the ball was first touched. So, it helps the (new and inexperienced) umpire focus first on where the ball is when first touched. If it is caught, it doesn't matter where it was.

Seems to me the new umpire should be taught to look for fair or foul just as they are on a bounding ball.

I understand the reasoning, just don't see the point to it.