Appeal a turn toward second.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by shagpal

yes, I understand the position already laid out. the validity for doing nothing has already been established, but not the awkwardness and confusion doing nothing can cause, hence your temptation and my contention. nothing works for me for in a host of situations, but not for the panacea being hailed for this situation.

there is only one section in the umpires manual regarding appeals. it's on page 12 to 13, totaling 3 simple paragraphs. the last paragraph taken in whole and entirety does not reconcile w/ doing nothing. the key word that I find alarming being "wishes". wishes conveys desire & intention, whereas the do nothing camp is arguing validity.

I appreciate your engaging and candid response, but I am expecting for mikes (irishmafia) response, since he was most adamant.

shagpal,
You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer in your day job, would you?

[shagpal]

you got the question wrong. the question is, are you judge?

Originally Posted by argodad

shagpal,
You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer in your day job, would you?

[shagpal]

could you describe the confusion as you might see it?

I think it's agreed, it is desirable to convey nothing. the do nothing camp insists doing nothing conveys nothing, and that might apply in vacuum of a forum. but I don't think that is what it will convey when it is really applied.

I imagine that it will cause and exacerbate confusion at the worst possible moment. when that happens, the do nothing will be largely the target of blame, since the do nothing will likely be the draw of attention and highly culpable in creating confusion.

Originally Posted by Dakota

How does this compare with the confusion caused by appearing to deny an appeal by signaling safe, when what you are really trying to convey is "that is not a proper appeal"?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shagpal

could you describe the confusion as you might see it?..

I already did.

[shagpal]

okie, sorry, the thread has gotten quite long, and some replies are very hard to follow, so lemme go back thru and see what you posted.

Originally Posted by Dakota

I already did.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

what game management technique(s) to use to get everyone back to playing?

Get into position and stay alert. Expect a tag attempt, a pickoff throw, or the ball getting to the pitcher in the circle. Let the players play and the coaches coach.

We're getting into the twilight zone here. Has anyone ever had a stalemate last longer than a minute, or even a few seconds, before someone did something?

I might respond to any comments or questions directed at me with "live ball" or "That's not an appeal". And I might be quick to call the game for darkness when we actually reach twilight.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The question is then, what game management technique(s) to use to get everyone back to playing? What are your suggestions?

Just stay with the play. Move to the best possible position for any possible subsequent play. The players have coaches and teammates to help them react and perform on the field and you have........yourself and the mechanics. You just do your job which does not include making up for the players' shortcomings. It is their job to know how to play the game, our job to officiate it.

How many times has a player told you where you have to be or get to? How often are they right? Would it be nice to get into the infield for the back end of a two-banger at 1B? Sure, but if there is a runner on or rounding 3B, are you willing to forego missing a play at the plate should an infielder try to cut down the run instead of getting the BR at first?

You know that when situations are not the best, the mechanics resort to priorities. We all know a play at the plate is more important than one at 1B.

BTW, when a fair ball lies still in front of the plate and the BR isn't running and the catcher isn't pouncing on the ball, what is the prescribed mechanic? Is there anything else to do other then moving up the line and point fair just as you do on any other fair ball?

While I am not a fan of all prescribed mechanics, they are the best tool to keep an umpire out of trouble during a game.

[shagpal]

almost every explanation you've given assumes solo umpiring and NO consideration for the umpires manual, addressing nothing about typical crew situations w/ different eyes. the umpires manual IS part of the sanctioning body. give it the attention it deserves.

if the plate sees an attempt, and base doesn't, players might still ask any umpire. players will ask the base, that might lead to pleading to the plate, the plate would redirect back per the umpires manual as instructed, and at that point, your stubbornness will have throwing one of our umpires under the bus.

be the authority figure as the UIC and address this. clarify. do something.

I have said this before, I don't like the discrepancy either, but doing nothing as a panacea to cover everything can be a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just stay with the play. Move to the best possible position for any possible subsequent play. The players have coaches and teammates to help them react and perform on the field and you have........yourself and the mechanics. You just do your job which does not include making up for the players' shortcomings. It is their job to know how to play the game, our job to officiate it.

How many times has a player told you where you have to be or get to? How often are they right? Would it be nice to get into the infield for the back end of a two-banger at 1B? Sure, but if there is a runner on or rounding 3B, are you willing to forego missing a play at the plate should an infielder try to cut down the run instead of getting the BR at first?

You know that when situations are not the best, the mechanics resort to priorities. We all know a play at the plate is more important than one at 1B.

BTW, when a fair ball lies still in front of the plate and the BR isn't running and the catcher isn't pouncing on the ball, what is the prescribed mechanic? Is there anything else to do other then moving up the line and point fair just as you do on any other fair ball?

While I am not a fan of all prescribed mechanics, they are the best tool to keep an umpire out of trouble during a game.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Get into position and stay alert. Expect a tag attempt, a pickoff throw, or the ball getting to the pitcher in the circle. Let the players play and the coaches coach.

We're getting into the twilight zone here. Has anyone ever had a stalemate last longer than a minute, or even a few seconds, before someone did something?

I might respond to any comments or questions directed at me with "live ball" or "That's not an appeal". And I might be quick to call the game for darkness when we actually reach twilight.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just stay with the play. Move to the best possible position for any possible subsequent play. The players have coaches and teammates to help them react and perform on the field and you have........yourself and the mechanics. You just do your job which does not include making up for the players' shortcomings. It is their job to know how to play the game, our job to officiate it.

That was not what I meant. I guess I assumed that part, always optimizing position, alertness, not being in the way, etc.

I intended the question to be about handling the non-playing result:
- fielder coming to you with an argument
- runner doing the same
- base coach getting in the way while complaining
- activity like that
any or all of which confuses or disrupts the situation to the point of something having to be done. For example, at what point do you
- hold up a hand to dissuade the arguer
- back away a little to indicate there is no play going on
- verbally exert more control
- etc., like the red wording above?

[CecilOne]

I don't like reading upside down.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

That was not what I meant. I guess I assumed that part, always optimizing position, alertness, not being in the way, etc.

I intended the question to be about handling the non-playing result:
- fielder coming to you with an argument
- runner doing the same
- base coach getting in the way while complaining
- activity like that

Just about the same. Stay with the play. If they get in the way, step around them. If they block you out, I guess you cannot see their teammate just put out the runner. Whatever you do, you stay with the play. If the coach interferes with the play, eject him when the play is over. I s/he physically keeps you from doing your job and you feel you have to kill the play, do so. Award runners the bases you believed they would have made had the coach not interfered with you and eject the coach.

any or all of which confuses or disrupts the situation to the point of something having to be done. For example, at what point do you
- hold up a hand to dissuade the arguer
- back away a little to indicate there is no play going on
- verbally exert more control
- etc., like the red wording above?

All are possibilities, but stay with the play.

[HugoTafurst]

If someone would like to aid my understanding of this latest part of this discussion......

Please re-state specifically the play being "appealed" or not appealed.
And also specifically state the actions of the defense in "appealing".

I use quotation marks because I understand that part of the question is whether or not a proper appeal is being made..

.............never mind.......

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just about the same. Stay with the play. If they get in the way, step around them. If they block you out, I guess you cannot see their teammate just put out the runner. Whatever you do, you stay with the play. If the coach interferes with the play, eject him when the play is over. I s/he physically keeps you from doing your job and you feel you have to kill the play, do so. Award runners the bases you believed they would have made had the coach not interfered with you and eject the coach.



All are possibilities, but stay with the play.

Why would you think anyone would not stay with the play?

[shagpal]

I think I need to clarify to help move the discussion.

what mike is trying to describe, is how he would do nothing, which is silly. his description is trying to describe how he's really not advocating being frozen. what the do nothing camp is really saying is just do as you normally do, but don't say a word, since any uttering could result in something undesirable. it's like saying, "you have the right to remain silent", so stay silent, STFU, and call your safe & outs, and your balls & strikes.

my position isn't that doing nothing is wrong, on the contrary. my position is that if doing nothing appears to be causing more harm than good, staying with that approach is a cop-out, and I believe the umpires manuals suggest that to be the case as well.

the problem w/ the do nothing camp is their stubbornness, rigidity, and I think their arrogance. their answer lies in the umpire manuals. all they have to do is point out the difference between the NHFS umpires manual, and the CCA umpires manual. the CCA manual does a much better job of clarifying.

the mechanic to apply as I am reading this, is first, wait and pause, and do nothing. that is consistent w/ the do nothing camp. the reason being, this attempted appeal is an action-only appeal, attempted by a possibly wrong action (depending on what's being appealed). I am fully aware of this and am not oblivious to this as the do nothings continue to peddle.

second, if it is clearly obvious that the player on 1B with possession of the ball and touching the bag is attempting to invoke an appeal, the responsible umpire should ask what is being requested, and of what player. the reason for this is because perhaps player on 1B really wants to appeal a missed bag, and the umpire, doing nothing, thinks otherwise. it's the responsible umpires obligation to clarify the request, given the OP's scenario. there is nothing in the manual that indicates this can't be done while the ball is live.

the do nothing camp might insist it is verboten to even utter anything to clarify, even tho the umpire manuals clearly state it is appropriate to do so. after clarification, I would rule either on the missed bag, or if player on 1B requests a check of BR attempting second, I might reply w/ something like "I got nothing".

the point where the responsible umpire should clarify, is where I differ from the do nothing guys. the do nothing guys might insist that speaking during live play is verboten, but I can't find anything in the umpires manual that suggests such. the do nothings might say it's okay to clarify but afterwards to return back to doing nothing. I would disagree, because at that point it's already abundantly clear to everyone something is being requested. once it's gone that far, there is no turning back to doing nothing.

why "I have nothing"? well, it's partially compliant with the do nothing camp, so it makes them happy. it's got nothing in the sentence. if redirected by a partner, it's a simple, "partner, I have nothing". this might or might not work, but is equivalently close to saying nothing, without saying nothing. this is the best thing I could come up w/ and still not infuriate the do nothings.

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Why would you think anyone would not stay with the play?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by shagpal

I think I need to clarify to help move the discussion.

what mike is trying to describe, is how he would do nothing, which is silly. his description is trying to describe how he's really not advocating being frozen. what the do nothing camp is really saying is just do as you normally do, but don't say a word, since any uttering could result in something undesirable. it's like saying, "you have the right to remain silent", so stay silent, STFU, and call your safe & outs, and your balls & strikes.

my position isn't that doing nothing is wrong, on the contrary. my position is that if doing nothing appears to be causing more harm than good, staying with that approach is a cop-out, and I believe the umpires manuals suggest that to be the case as well.

the problem w/ the do nothing camp is their stubbornness, rigidity, and I think their arrogance. their answer lies in the umpire manuals. all they have to do is point out the difference between the NHFS umpires manual, and the CCA umpires manual. the CCA manual does a much better job of clarifying.

the mechanic to apply as I am reading this, is first, wait and pause, and do nothing. that is consistent w/ the do nothing camp. the reason being, this attempted appeal is an action-only appeal, attempted by a possibly wrong action (depending on what's being appealed). I am fully aware of this and am not oblivious to this as the do nothings continue to peddle.

second, if it is clearly obvious that the player on 1B with possession of the ball and touching the bag is attempting to invoke an appeal, the responsible umpire should ask what is being requested, and of what player. the reason for this is because perhaps player on 1B really wants to appeal a missed bag, and the umpire, doing nothing, thinks otherwise. it's the responsible umpires obligation to clarify the request, given the OP's scenario. there is nothing in the manual that indicates this can't be done while the ball is live.

the do nothing camp might insist it is verboten to even utter anything to clarify, even tho the umpire manuals clearly state it is appropriate to do so. after clarification, I would rule either on the missed bag, or if player on 1B requests a check of BR attempting second, I might reply w/ something like "I got nothing".

the point where the responsible umpire should clarify, is where I differ from the do nothing guys. the do nothing guys might insist that speaking during live play is verboten, but I can't find anything in the umpires manual that suggests such. the do nothings might say it's okay to clarify but afterwards to return back to doing nothing. I would disagree, because at that point it's already abundantly clear to everyone something is being requested. once it's gone that far, there is no turning back to doing nothing.

why "I have nothing"? well, it's partially compliant with the do nothing camp, so it makes them happy. it's got nothing in the sentence. if redirected by a partner, it's a simple, "partner, I have nothing". this might or might not work, but is equivalently close to saying nothing, without saying nothing. this is the best thing I could come up w/ and still not infuriate the do nothings.

What office are you running for?