Calling safe between bases
 

Over on the baseball board, they are tossing around a play that a MLB ump missed. A runner forced from second to third was casually tagged and then while the fielder continued to play the runner advanced to third. The umpire made no call and then ruled the tag missed when the runner arrived at third.

Their argument now centers around whether the umpire believing the tag to be missed should have made any indication of safe prior to the runner reaching third. Thoughts for softball?
________
Cannabis seeds

Starting the obvious: Baseball ain't softball. So umpiring one is different from the other. Though they have simmilar methods, it's still different.
Having said that coming to your question:
I don't have any problems giving a safe signal between the bases on a "failed tag". In the way I must umpire (subscribed by our board) is that I do have to indicate verbal the "Tag" or "No tag". Off course signalling safe with the verbal call makes things more clear...

Coming back to the baseball; I can't see the why. Why is there so much humbug about an ump making a call between bases? If there is a play, there must also be a call. Counterway there's apparently no argument for "No play-No call" on the bases? If there's no play on a base, the ump makes no call. Right? So why must that be different between the bases?

Well, if the runner wasn't ruled out, he must still be safe.

If it was that casual a move, maybe the umpire did not believe there was a valid attempt to make a tag. After all, how many times do we see a youth player almost move out of a runner's way to throw a ball to 1B to get a BR?

Unfortunately on this one, if "the umpire did not believe there was a valid attempt to make a tag", he was sorely mistaken, as there was an ACTUAL tag.

The arguers over there are insane sometimes. To me - our job of officiating includes telling people what we see when we see it. If we see an attempted tag, but no actual tag - we should tell them what we saw by at LEAST signalling safe. I don't like "No Tag" (or any 2-word call that includes the opposite 1-word call)... people don't always heare the no... just the Tag part. I'd rather just say no and signal safe on a play like this one...

(Well .. on a play EXACTLY like this one, I'd hope I'd actually call the player out!)

Mike, I do agree with you we are supposed to let players, coaches and spectators know what we see. Signals and verbal call's are to things we use.

However, "not liking" and "not using" are to me 2 different things. I also don't like "No Tag", however I do use it. I don't have a propper alternative. And if you stress the "NO" and lower the voice on "Tag" it dous sounds completely different from a stressed "TAG". Add the signaling to it and everybody knows...

I also use "OFF the bag", stress on "OFF" and low on the words "the bag". Followed with the "Throwing away"-move from the base. Then comes the save-call...
As PU I use "YESSSS, you went" on a bunt attempt, while pointing at the batter. Followed with the strike call.

You see, I use the "multiple word"-call's smart. As if they were one-word call's. No coach has to come to me asking what I meant. They mostly come over asking me if I can't get any help from my partner or if I don't need a white stick with a red bandage on it (Walking stick for blind people...)

Here's the play, if anyone is interested:

Top Plays | TB@MIN: Gardenhire is ejected arguing a play at third - Video | twinsbaseball.com: Multimedia

Notice the professionalism exhibited by the umpire (big bag of sunflower seed sticking out of his pocket, spitting seeds all during the conversation with the manager...) I guess those MLB umpires need their snacks during the games; it was the 10th inning, after all, he was probably hungry! :rolleyes:

Yeah, he definitely booted that call.

One more reason I'm glad ASA teaches us to get 90 degrees to the tag. Looking at a play from that angle will drastically increase the chance that you'll miss the tag.