Appeal a turn toward second.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by shagpal

. . . you will most certainly be asked to explain your call when the ball becomes dead or after LBR.
. . .
. . . the umpire might possibly be at the end of blame for any confusion for not clarifying the state of play.

Well, sure, if DHC (defensive head coach) asks for an explanation, I'll call time after relaxed action, and explain anything in as few words as possible.

Knowing the vitality of the ball is the players' responsibility, assisted by their coaches, and is part of the game. Volunteering whether the ball is live is not my job. If you do, then you would be to blame for coaching. Let players make dumb moves.

[shagpal]

after your safe call, the smartest player will realize the state of play and make their play. the player that is not as smart and their coach will blame you for their confusion anyways in the aftermath. or imagine this...in the confusion, everyone thinks the ball is already dead including your partner. wouldn't that be ugly.

Originally Posted by Paul L

Well, sure, if DHC (defensive head coach) asks for an explanation, I'll call time after relaxed action, and explain anything in as few words as possible.

Knowing the vitality of the ball is the players' responsibility, assisted by their coaches, and is part of the game. Volunteering whether the ball is live is not my job. If you do, then you would be to blame for coaching. Let players make dumb moves.

[Dakota]

So, those of you who favor giving the safe signal (with no clarifying verbal from the umpire)... how do the players know wtf you are signaling for?

[shagpal]

hi tom, I'll bite first, since I'm the troublemaker for you "do nothing" camp guys.

after making sure I knew what was being appealed, I would position myself properly. I would turn to my partner, let's say you, and I would say, "Tom, I have a LIVE appeal for the batter-runner attempting to advance to second". I would indicate at the batter-runner, perhaps w/ both hands. I would then announce "my call is SAFE" and I would give the safe signal.

I'm not implying this way would fix rulebook & umpire manual flaws, but I just can't see any way outa this and not comply w/ our own books. damned if we do, damned if we don't. but doing NOTHING is a plain cop-out.

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, those of you who favor giving the safe signal (with no clarifying verbal from the umpire)... how do the players know wtf you are signaling for?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Well, despite being accused of coaching, I repeat what I opined in post #24 in this thread. One of those is still my response to the "appeal", since no appeal is possible without actually tagging the player.

An "appeal" that doesn't make clear what is being appealed can/should only be answered with a question asking what is being appealed; not a guess about the only legitimate appeal. An appeal that is improperly performed cannot be answered as an appeal; so not safe, nor out; answering the question isn't necessarily coaching, it may be the only possible response to the question posed.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shagpal

hi tom, I'll bite first, since I'm the troublemaker for you "do nothing" camp guys.

after making sure I knew what was being appealed, I would position myself properly. I would turn to my partner, let's say you, and I would say, "Tom, I have a LIVE appeal for the batter-runner attempting to advance to second". I would indicate at the batter-runner, perhaps w/ both hands. I would then announce "my call is SAFE" and I would give the safe signal.

I'm not implying this way would fix rulebook & umpire manual flaws, but I just can't see any way outa this and not comply w/ our own books. damned if we do, damned if we don't. but doing NOTHING is a plain cop-out.

I disagree it is a copout. It seems to me signaling "safe" does not communicate what you are trying to communicate. The problem I have with this is you are, it seems to me, denying the "appeal" - that is, signaling that there was no try for second, when in fact there was. If you signal "safe", it is pretty much impossible short of uttering the words "that is not a proper appeal" or some such to avoid telling the teams (however inadvertently and however much you know it to not be true) that the runner is not in jeopardy if she returns to 1B.

Doing nothing, OTOH, merely leaves the ball live and lets the teams decide what to do next.

[shagpal]

how is a safe or out call a denial of an appeal? or coaching? it is explicitly an acknowledgment of an appeal as defined by the umpires manual. it's expressly defined as an appeal w/in the rulebook so as not to be ignored or confused.

if an umpire refuses to answer, that is a denial, because the umpires manual expressly states what an umpire is to do, acknowledge the appeal, and rule. it gives NO other choice other than safe or out call. if safe or out calls were coaching, would safe or out be the only choices allowable responses in the umpires manual? the umpires manual provides NO provision otherwise.

now, if an umpire wants to stretch the manual's intent and DELAY, then by choice that umpire would be willfully creating/forcing a do-nothing scenario, that is gaming the manual's intention set forth. that's why doing nothing is a cop-out.

Originally Posted by Dakota

I disagree it is a copout. It seems to me signaling "safe" does not communicate what you are trying to communicate. The problem I have with this is you are, it seems to me, denying the "appeal" - that is, signaling that there was no try for second, when in fact there was. If you signal "safe", it is pretty much impossible short of uttering the words "that is not a proper appeal" or some such to avoid telling the teams (however inadvertently and however much you know it to not be true) that the runner is not in jeopardy if she returns to 1B.

Doing nothing, OTOH, merely leaves the ball live and lets the teams decide what to do next.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shagpal

how is a safe or out call a denial of an appeal? or coaching? it is explicitly an acknowledgment of an appeal as defined by the umpires manual. it's expressly defined as an appeal w/in the rulebook so as not to be ignored or confused.

if an umpire refuses to answer, that is a denial, because the umpires manual expressly states what an umpire is to do, acknowledge the appeal, and rule. it gives NO other choice other than safe or out call. if safe or out calls were coaching, would safe or out be the only choices allowable responses in the umpires manual? the umpires manual provides NO provision otherwise.

now, if an umpire wants to stretch the manual's intent and DELAY, then by choice that umpire would be willfully creating/forcing a do-nothing scenario, that is gaming the manual's intention set forth. that's why doing nothing is a cop-out.

Did I say anything about coaching? I'm talking about what the signal means and what it communicates to the players. Let me make this simpler: how is the signal "safe" (meaning that is not an appeal) different from the signal "safe" (meaning the runner did not try for 2B)? The umpire manual does not cover all possible situations.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, those of you who favor giving the safe signal (with no clarifying verbal from the umpire)... how do the players know wtf you are signaling for?

The guy with the ball and some others will know because they heard the request for a ruling and saw the signal in response. Some might figure it out from the context. Others might not. Matters not. All the players need to know is whether there is an out. The safe signal tells them there is not. If they're curious about what happened, they can inquire later.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Why are you cursing at us?

Say what?