Timing of Score - No Tag Up
 

Runners on 2nd and 3rd base, 1 out. Batter hits fly to outfield which is caught. Runner on 3rd properly tags and scores before runner on 2nd, who forgot to tag, is doubled off at 2nd base.

Does run count? (NSA)

Yes, that is an appeal which is a timing play - not a 3rd out "force"

The run counts..

All orgs I'm sure.

timing signal
 

Worked with some partners lately who signal each other a reminder to watch for a timing play by tapping their wrist (simulating pointing to a watch). This is with runner(s) in scoring position and 2 outs.
Anyone else do this? Is it recommended/required by any org?

Not familiar with this. Though my question becomes... Why should anyone have to remind an umpire if something is a timing play? On some appeals, it will matter. On others, it will not.

For example, R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B, one out. Deep fly ball hit to right field towards the 315' fence. F10 makes a great diving catch near the wall, but stumbles a little getting up. Both R1 and R2 make it home.

Sitch 1 - R1 left early.
Sitch 2 - R2 left early.

In sitch 1, whether or not it's a timing play makes no difference. Since R1 is the 3rd out, no trailing runner can score. In sitch 2, it IS a timing play. However, R1 crossed the plate before the appeal, so he scores.

"Reminding" other umpires that there could be a timing play has the potential to confuse umpires who should, in my opinion, already be aware of any timing plays.

After all, that's a lot of what we do - timing and force plays.

Why? Because it is good communication among the umpiring crew just like signaling the IFF is on or off.

MTD, Sr.

Darn, you took the words right off the tip of my fingers!

Because there are only four possible situations with runners that can create an IFF situation (runners on 1B & 2B, or bases loaded, plus either no outs or one out). The possible outcome is the same: IFF, batter out. That one is simple.

With this "potential timing play" signal, let me ask you... What, if anything, would the plate umpire do differently?

Then why not give the count prior to every pitch, along with the inning?

Why not a signal that you are in the 7th inning so you can make sure you get that run or out? :rolleyes:

To me, this is extraneous communication because there is a potential timing play every time the number of runners and outs adds up to three.

Agreed. An umpire should always be on his/her toes. What if you DON'T have a runner in scoring position (say, a runner on 1B)? Should you be any less alert? How about if you have bases loaded with only one out?

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing, just an unnecessary thing. I dare say this is "overcommunicating," a concept I am reluctant to acknowledge due to my membership in a group whose latest mantra is "communicate, guys, communicate!" :D

The CCA softball umpires manual (college softball) does have the timing play signal in the section on umpires to umpire signals.

The reasoning:

"This alerts all umpires to the possibility of a time play and verifies that all umpires are aware that there are two outs."

I remember years ago this signal being taught in ASA umpire clinics (but I have not done ASA softball recently).

The OP only has one out though. Who would ever need to use this signal with one out?? It wouldn't bother me with two but I am generally aware of the count and the outs.
Partner or me in C always reminds to check for IFF. If Runners on 1st and 2nd advance on WP or PB. I wipe it just to remind my partner. Unnecessary but just making sure.

The plate umpire is reminded to be particularly cognizant of the position of a lead runner (scored or not scored) if a play is made that creates a timing third out. The base umpire is reminded that the "out call" is a timing concern, and can't be as leisurely as "it ain't nothing until I call it".

Sure, every umpire should be aware in every situation, in a perfect world. For us humans, a reminder that there are two outs, and a potential timing play that might be a game breaker; well, I just don't see any more harm than repeating the IFF signal four batters in a row, if the IFF is in effect four batters in a row.

So basically, they do nothing physically different? Completely a mental function? Sorry, Steve, but this just seems a little bit too "basic" for someone entrusted with the plate. The PU, by default, should ALWAYS be cognizant of a potential timing play that could make a difference in a run scoring or not. To me, that's like saying we should have signals for "watch for a foul ball." One out, two outs, it doesn't matter - you can still have a timing play at any point in time that can determine whether or not a run will score.

And I signal the IFF each time, just like you. Frankly, I'm not sure why, since I'm usually the first one to signal it anyway (both as BU and as PU), but by golly, I do it! :D

I agree, we have some lazy-a$$ umpires out there. However, I think that this is an example of overcommunication. Telling someone to do a basic function of their job is, in my opinion, overcommunicating.

We were taught this in our local association.

Have you found it to be helpful in any way? Do most of your umps use the signal consistently?