If no one does anything different after the signal than they would otherwise, what good is the signal?

Exactly.

Yeah, I meant to comment on that, too. Simply forgot.

Softball doesn't really recognize a timing play signal. NCAA used to, but changed its' use, I believe last year, to simply remind any time there are two outs. Because, frankly, any time a runner is on any base, there is the possibility of a timing play.

So, why do it? To make sure the entire crew is reminded there are two outs; so, a possible timing play, obviously no IFF, etc. Even if you don't do anything apparently different, we are reminding each other there are two outs; a distinction well worth knowing (compared to less than two outs).

That's OK, you do the talking - I'll just remind you if I think of something. ;-)

Damn
 

I misread that entire post!!!

The use of the point signal is not a bad habit.....overuse the point signal is a bad habit and a misuse of the signal.

Again, if the code you're working does not have the point signal as an authorized signal then I'm sure you don't want to be using it.

Personally I think it a great tool to have in your bag. And if I'm a BU on a timing play (which was the subject of the OP); I'm using it every time....no matter what code I'm working.

You know what I do to remind everyone there are two outs? Hold up two finger on my right hand. That's worked fine for me the last 46+ years, see no reason to change now.

And, BTW, if an umpire doesn't understand what could happen or should not happen with two outs, I have a school for you........

It's simply a reminder that there are two outs and the possibility of a timing play is greater than if there was one out, or there was two outs but no runner in scoring position. It's probably not endorsed by certain ruling bodies because they feel umpires should already know the situation and need not be reminded.

I used to point at plays when I first started umpiring. But I was drilled and drilled that I had to get rid of the point, so I make a conscious effort not to use it anymore. That's really why I don't point in this scenario. If it is acceptable to point, I have no problem doing it. I just didn't think the point was acceptable for any play.

But what is the difference of using a "signal" that is very similar (at 70'+) to an existing sign with a different meaning and holding up two fingers which is an approved mechanic in all sets of mechanics of which I am aware? IOW, why a signal for something that already exists?

If there is cause to point at something in particular (a tag, loose ball on the ground, a foot, etc.) that you feel needs to be communicated, sure go ahead and point. Just make sure there is something at which to point, don't point for the sake of pointing.

I came up with the habit of pointing on all my sells, many of which were legitimate, some not so much. I discovered I did this for balance on an overhand. When I stepped forward with my left foot, I pull back my right shoulder and a natural (for me) reaction was to extend my left arm for balance and that seemed to turn into a point. Occasionally, still have to work at holding it back.

I don't have a problem with the "Tap-to-the-Watch" signal. I use it all the time, despite what I've heard at baseball (sorry!) clinics. In those clinics, I've heard instructors say that we shouldn't use the signal because coaches and fans may misinterpret its purpose, believing that it actually means, "This game is dragging; hurry things up!" They suggest we simply give the standard two-out signal.

If you were pointing all the time, I can understand why you were drilled and drilled to cut it out. Now that you've cut it out and understand it's not appropriate on every play, you should now begin using it judiciously when it is helpful to communicate something.

Since you asked the question in the OP, I suppose a judicious point would certainly help. But I don't believe that's the "school solution" for helping a partner on a timing play. In fact, I've never heard of one ever mentioned in a clinic, but I could certainly go with a point.

But even a point, to a degree, could backfire, as I mentioned. Just like you don't want to make an immediate Out call until you've seen the play through its conclusion, you really don't want to point immediately either. Poor timing may bite you.

You mentioned the lack of a signal leaving the PU in the dark 100% of the time. But that 100% really only applies to extremely close calls as what happened to you. In reality, most timing plays aren't very close. So not getting a conspicuous signal from a partner on the bases isn't going to make or break the final call.

Fair enough.

This is why I asked the question - to see what the "general" consensus was around what umpires might do differently after using the, ahem, 2-outs slash look what time it is signal. Obviously, my partner's understanding of that and mine differed - and given that he's the big fish in comparison, I was looking for input from a more national audience.

Thanks all.

How do you figure? A point isn't an out call. All we are talking about in this case is giving your partner an indicator so he can note the position of the runner. There is no extra credit for the plate umpire to jump in with a decision quicker than necessary.

If you point at something that causes a safe call, the position of the runner is irrelevant as there is no decision to be made.

The one situation I brought up where a point could be immature is when the umpire sees the initial tag, but the fielder loses possession of the ball (or never had it to begin with, and the umpire pointed in error), and then regains possession and applies a "real" tag of the runner before the runner safely touches the base.

I actually saw a play like this that happened in a high school state quarterfinal this year that I worked. I was U3, and there was R1 on third. The batter hit a slow roller to F5, and R1 took off for home. F5 threw low to F2, who went down on her knees to catch the ball. The ball arrived just before R1, who slid into F2 short of the plate. On the slide, the ball came out of F2's mitt, but landed on R1's leg. F2 was able and quick enough to grab the ball with her hand, completing the actual tag.

My PU partner was set up in such a way that he didn't see that the ball popped out of F2's mitt. He came up with the sell out signal before F2 regained possession of the ball. As it turned out, R1 was out, but the out actually happened after the PU's call.

If a similar play had happened at second or third base on a timing play, the sell call could have taken place before the runner touched home, but the actual out could have happened after the plate touch.

Yeah, I agree it's a rare situation. But it could happen.