How to "call" a ball not caught?

[Dutch Alex]

The sound of "Fair Ball" is kinda simmelair to "Foul Ball".
A "not caught fair hitted ball" is also not an action by a fielder, so a "Safe call" is unpropiat.
All we have to do is just point to fair territory with the right index-finger. THAT is the propper way to give a signal for fair hitted ball!

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alex

The sound of "Fair Ball" is kinda simmelair to "Foul Ball".
A "not caught fair hitted ball" is also not an action by a fielder, so a "Safe call" is unpropiat.
All we have to do is just point to fair territory with the right index-finger. THAT is the propper way to give a signal for fair hitted ball!

I would disagree. The OP said the ball short-hopped the SS as he was making a play. As umpires, we are in the communication business. We must communicate what's occurred. In this situation, it's a "no catch." Everyone is best served by a "safe" signal.

In NCAA, we're taught to give a "safe" signal on a potential INT/OB call that we rule is neither. It's an umpire's way of communicating what has occurred and what your ruling is.

[Dutch Alex]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

... As umpires, we are in the communication business. We must communicate what's occurred. {snap}

... It's an umpire's way of communicating what has occurred and what your ruling is.

I agree that we must communcate what our ruling is. Pointing is the way to communicate that we indeed have a fair hitted ball.

There's no play on a runner, so a "SAFE" call is not to be given.
There is no difference in calling "a close no-catch" or "a fair hiited ball, down the line". So pointing fair, must be the propper way.

Maybe, just maybe, one can add a hand-signal to it, indicating a hop on the ground.

IMHO a SAFE-call, is not wanted. A verbal given call is asking for trouble!

[NCASAUmp]

Sander, are these the mechanics that were given to you by your organization in Europe? They're different from what we're instructed to do here in the US.

They're not wrong, they're just different.

And don't forget, guys, that pointing to the ground was the ASA signal for a trapped ball up until a couple years ago.

[Umpteenth]

I worked with a partner (PU) last night who wanted me (BU) to be able to completely focus on the baserunners. On any fly ball, he called either, "Catch!" or "On the ground!".

[Dutch Alex]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Sander, are these the mechanics that were given to you by your organization in Europe? They're different from what we're instructed to do here in the US.

They're not wrong, they're just different.

And don't forget, guys, that pointing to the ground was the ASA signal for a trapped ball up until a couple years ago.

Dave, we follow ESF. That's the Europe Softball Federation. They use the rule set from the ISF. ISF is following the ASA rule set only a few years later... So it might be that in a couple a years we as well are yelling "SAFE" on a trapped ball. (I guess not) Shmuelg is using ESF as well in Israel.

I think the mechanic yelling "SAFE / No catch" is wrong, not only different.
Signaling "SAFE" looks to much on a baseball-machanic, IMO, so there's onter reason why I'm not willing to use that machanic. I'm a softball-ump. not a small-baller.

Background info on the latter:
ISF wants national federations (the most located in Europe) with a baseball and softball-devision to separate. I agree with that, although that's gonna cost a lot. Here in the Neth.'s softball brings in the most Euro's for our national federation; but the most money is spent by our baseball-devision... So ,for me, separate them!

[topper]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alex

Signaling "SAFE" looks to much on a baseball-machanic, IMO, so there's onter reason why I'm not willing to use that machanic. I'm a softball-ump. not a small-baller.

So do you avoid using any signal that is used in baseball?

I have heard this from quite a number of softball officials and find it difficult to imagine a more lame reason for the way we officiate a softball game.

[Dutch Alex]

Originally Posted by topper

So do you avoid using any signal that is used in baseball?

I have heard this from quite a number of softball officials and find it difficult to imagine a more lame reason for the way we officiate a softball game.

Off course not! However those "typical for baseball" (as a pointed strike to the side instead of a hamered one) I avoid.

Does you question mean, that you think softball is "baseball for girls"? It sure does sound like that!

The two sports, imo, have common roots but are complete different. Just as poker and black-jack...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

I would disagree. The OP said the ball short-hopped the SS as he was making a play. As umpires, we are in the communication business. We must communicate what's occurred. In this situation, it's a "no catch." Everyone is best served by a "safe" signal.

True, but I don't believe the signal is the issue. When a ball is put into play, the defense has people screaming for the ball here or there and the offense is screaming for the BR/Rs to run here or there. In many cases, very few are going to realize a complete verbal call. The offense has designated coaches to direct the runners (many of whom haven't the slightest idea how to coach) and defenders are not lacking in help from teammates. Step up and give a safe signal.

In NCAA, we're taught to give a "safe" signal on a potential INT/OB call that we rule is neither. It's an umpire's way of communicating what has occurred and what your ruling is.

IMO, over-officiating redundancy. Don't know what sect of the game initiated the mechanic, but I have a good idea

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IMO, over-officiating redundancy. Don't know what sect of the game initiated the mechanic, but I have a good idea

Mike, I think that it is a good signal, as we communicate what we saw, even if everyone else saw it. And, for the record, we are communicating "no infraction", not "safe."

Would you consider pointing "fair" as over-officiating and redundant?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Mike, I think that it is a good signal, as we communicate what we saw, even if everyone else saw it. And, for the record, we are communicating "no infraction", not "safe."

Now think about it, Class. If you see INT, what do you do? ? ? Anyone? That's right, we hold up both arms with the palms facing forward and kill the play.

Okay, let's move onto the next situation. If you observe OBS, what do you do? Bueller, are you here for this one? Hello? Anyone else? That's correct, we extend our left arm to indicate a DDB. Can you repeat after me? Delayed-Dead-Ball. Very good, Class.

Now, let's step this up a notch. If there is some sort of interaction between an offensive player and a defensive player and you, as the umpire, determine there is no infraction, what do you need to do? C'mon, I know this is a hard one, but I know you all know the answer to this one. Anyone? Hmmmm......Okay, Class, let's look at it this way. If you are a player or coach or a spectator and you observe some level of interaction on the field between a runner and a fielder and the umpire makes no signal or call of any type, what do you have? Lil' Johnny, can you answer this without using that potty mouth of yours? Yes, Johnny, what do you have? What was that? That's correct, during that play there was...


NOTHING!
NO INFRACTION!


I'm sorry, Johnny, what was that last thing you said? Oh, my dear! Yes, Johnny, that's right, "not a ****ing thing" is, also, correct. Thank you.

Would you consider pointing "fair" as over-officiating and redundant?

Of course, not since it is an valid call. Something happened in which the players require a declaration as to whether continue or not.

And, BTW, Master Slick, it has not escaped many of us that your initials are BS, so watch your step or you will be back in the corner with that foul-mouthed, little ****, Johnny!

[AtlUmpSteve]

As I understand it, the purpose of the "safe" signal when seeing a play where they think you should be calling something is to acknowledge that 1) yes, I saw it, too, 2) I have made a judgment, it is a "no call", and 3) coming out to argue with me is challenging judgment, so you better come out asking about the rule, or else suggesting a different angle might have additional information to add.

To me, the biggest positive is that it stops the "he wasn't looking" griping; you can disagree with my judgment, but you know I saw it, and ruled on it. Personally, I think it is a good thing, when used appropriately (and not over-used).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

As I understand it, the purpose of the "safe" signal when seeing a play where they think you should be calling something is to acknowledge that 1) yes, I saw it, too, 2) I have made a judgment, it is a "no call", and 3) coming out to argue with me is challenging judgment, so you better come out asking about the rule, or else suggesting a different angle might have additional information to add.

To me, the biggest positive is that it stops the "he wasn't looking" griping; you can disagree with my judgment, but you know I saw it, and ruled on it. Personally, I think it is a good thing, when used appropriately (and not over-used).

Well, we will just disagree. Not only do I believe it is redundant since the lack of a signal means you did not believe it was a violation or you did not see it, which in every case of which I am aware, excludes the umpire from ruling otherwise.

On top of that, I believe it is an inappropriate signal as nothing occurred to suggest a player could be safe or out since if it did, there would have been another signal and/or call.

And while we are at it, this mechanic precludes absolutely no argument. It will be no different than any other play with or without a signal. It may actually be more inviting more trouble than what it is worth. It may be looked at as just another level of debate upon which a coach can hang their hat. "Blue, I knew you saw it! Obviously there was something there which made you think there could have been an infraction, but you decided not to call it."

And doesn't this pretty much fly in the face of the "no ball, no call" philosophy?

[ronald]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

2) I have made a judgment, it is a "no call", and 3) coming out to argue with me is challenging judgment, so you better come out asking about the rule, or else suggesting a different angle might have additional information to add.

Does that stop the coaches from coming out and questioning your judgment? Are college coaches allowed to come out and question and discuss the play?

What we really need is some empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of a safe signal in eliminating discussions between the coach and ump.

Obviously it is accepted and used at the college level but at that level you should see the play, be expected to see the play and all participants should expect a priori that blue is looking at that play. Thus, a no int/obs call indicates his/her judgment.

I'm left with it's a college thing. Just how they do it.



Maybe the distance will make them think about it but I am not sure it will stop them.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IMO, over-officiating redundancy. Don't know what sect of the game initiated the mechanic, but I have a good idea

Mike, I'm of the opinion that this is a good signal. Very much like the "play on" verbal in a different game. It lets those who need to know that you've seen "it" and you've got a nothing.