Timing Play

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

That really doesn't answer Mike's question. He didn't ask who should have taken the play at third base.

For me, I go with what I can see from my position at home plate, and assume that the tag was made when it likely would have been made. Sometimes, waiting on your partner's signal is not a good idea because he/she could expand his/her timing aspect of the play (as Mike's partner did here).

As the umpire making the call that affects the timing of when a run scores, I don't do anything different. I don't point as soon as I see the tag, because the ball could come out of the fielder's glove right after I point, and my partner could be fooled by my signal. But I also don't wait and wait and then sell the out as Mike's partner did.

You're looking at the use of the point signal the wrong way.

Not speaking for Mike, but.....

If I were his BU on the play, my point signal would tell him (and both teams) that at that juncture I have a tag, I have not signaled an OUT yet. I'm going to use my regular timing to locate the ball, make sure its controlled (if necessary, I'll say "show me the ball") followed by an out or safe signal. If it's an out signal, Mike would then make the determination if the run scored before the tag was made on the runner. It's a two signal mechanic, but requires two distinct signals.

Keep in mind, the timing play signal we give each other means both the PU & BU have responsibilities on the play.

As BU, mine is to make sure my PU clearly knows when I have the tag on the runner, as that's when the out was recorded, not when I gave my Out signal. The timing on my part of the play at 3rd needs to be precise, to help his timing on his part of the play at HP.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

You're looking at the use of the point signal the wrong way.

Other than when putting the ball in play, or when going to your partner for help on a checked swing, I didn't know a point signal was an appropriate mechanic to begin with.

The reason I don't like to point is because I may point prematurely (poor timing), seeing what I thought was a tag, only to subsequently see the fielder lose possession of the ball. If I point, the fielder loses possession, then she regains possession and can still make the tag for an out, my point will be for naught when it comes to the timing of the run scoring.

And since I don't point when it comes to other tag plays, I don't want to get into a possible bad habit of doing so.

[MD Longhorn]

Ok, so I'm curious. There's a mechanic you don't use that would help your partner 95% of the time, and give incorrect information 5%... or you could go with no mechanic and leave him in the dark 100% of the time.

See where I'm going?

[HugoTafurst]

Oh, you mean the 2 out signal?

[Dakota]

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

Exactly.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

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.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Ok, so I'm curious. There's a mechanic you don't use that would help your partner 95% of the time, and give incorrect information 5%... or you could go with no mechanic and leave him in the dark 100% of the time.

See where I'm going?

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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?

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Oh, you mean the 2 out signal?

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).

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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

(Snip)

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

, 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.

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........

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Other than when putting the ball in play, or when going to your partner for help on a checked swing, I didn't know a point signal was an appropriate mechanic to begin with.

Depending on what code your working the point may or may not be an approved signal for that particular sanctioning body.

The reason I don't like to point is because I may point prematurely (poor timing), seeing what I thought was a tag, only to subsequently see the fielder lose possession of the ball.

Giving any signal prematurely is poor timing.

If I point, the fielder loses possession, then she regains possession and can still make the tag for an out, my point will be for naught when it comes to the timing of the run scoring.

Ok......the play could possibly develop that way..

And since I don't point when it comes to other tag plays,

The point signal is used to draw attention to something unusual, its not a signal that's used on every tag play or just on tag plays.

I don't want to get into a possible bad habit of doing so.

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.