Timing Play
 

What do you differently, as an umpire, on a timing play?

Here's why I ask... working with a new to me, very solid partner over the weekend (he works higher level ball than me and is well respected and liked by all)... R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st, 2 outs. We give each other the timing play signal. Single to center. Both runners taking the extra base and the throw goes to third. I'm plate, and I line up home with 3rd so I can see both. Slide at 3rd takes the play to the outfield side of the bag - throw is in time but I can't see the actual timing of the tag, and it's VERY close to when my runner touches home.

As BU, do you do ANYthing to help your partner out on the timing of the tag? As it turned out, partner gives a long pause and then a very slow, protracted, big sell out. I have NO CLUE whether the tag happened first or not. Forced to guess, and being maybe 60-70% sure based on what I do know, I score the run.

Luckily, no one erupts, no coach questions, and the game ended up where that 1 run was not the difference. Given the mechanics of this tourney, I didn't have a chance for a post game with this partner, so I never got to discuss it with him.

And as a side question ... is 60-70% sure enough for you to score the run here? Do you have to be 100% sure of the score? Do you have to be 100% sure the other way to rule no run? In retrospect, I wish I'd went out to confer with him between innings.

The way I understand this is...
 

The BU has the intermediate runner at 3rd base when there is a potential play at the plate. If you watch ASA's new DVD its there. It's not covered well and is almost skated over but its there.

He did have that runner. That's not the issue. He did not help give PU any clues as to the moment that out at 3rd occurred, making it difficult for PU to know if the runner at home scored before that out. Given that the partners reminded each other there was a possible timing play, nothing occurred to help make the right call on the timing.

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.

I also don't do anything differently as the base ump, other than attempt to have some idea if the out occurred before the run scored, to assist if asked. You can't, as noted above, make the call before being sure the out is made; but you do know if you ruled on a clean initial tag, or a slide-by with a late tag.

As plate umpire, go with what you believe to be true, based on what you know. Other than a multi-angle replay like MLB TV, no one is even paying as much attention as you, they are all watching the play and the call at third base, anyway; and the we aren't talking about you blowing the obvious ones. Go with your call, and if asked by the opposing coach, do get together with the BU to be sure you didn't disallow a run based on an initial tag that wasn't the actual out.

I agree with Steve here. We have to work as a team on this play.

To answer your other question, Mike, I'd have to say I gotta know the runner definitely did not touch prior to the tag before I'm denying the run. But, perhaps that's just me.

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.

I can't seem to find this signal in ASA or NFHS....

Of course, there is no such signal in the books, but used a lot. :rolleyes:

Generally I agree with Manny, Steve, et al. :cool:

As the BU, if you see a point, and in this case you will almost always see a point from me, that will be an indicator that there has been a tag.

Why, what was he going to tell you that could have changed your call? The only thing I could see would be a delayed tag where the runner's path around the base cause the fielder to miss the initial tag or reposition. Whatever you do, don't wait for your partner's signal to check or mark the runner's location.

The only response you will get from me is wiping off the IF signal you just gave

Hopefully, you won't respond at all to a signal I don't give. :)

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. :D

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.

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?

Two Out Signal
 

Oh, you mean the 2 out signal?

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.

Manny, I hear you. But the fear of something weird like that happening shouldn't stop you from doing your best to get the call right. If BU points on a normal play when it appears the tag is made, helping PU decide if a run scores in time, it's helpful to the PU, and to the game.

If something weird happens, and he points, but the ball gets away, and THEN a tag is made anyway (how often does this happen anyway???), I would suggest he go talk with his partner and describe the play so he can make his best decision about the run. After all, we're a team out there. We've already acknowledged (with our rebellious timing play signal) to each other that there COULD be a play that we need to help each other out with... so when that happens - we should do what we can to help.

And a meteor could land on the field, end up in the circle and the question will arise, "Is the LBR still in effect?"

After I teach the fingers on my left hand to grow up, I'll have my mature fingers turn to Page 30 of the 2012 ASA Rule Book and reference the definition of "tag". If I'm pointing at a timely tag, I'm pointing at an out. Subsequent action is irrelevant.

As someone important once told me, "Don't diminish the Power of the Point through overuse." Use it when it's necessary, and not when it's not.

It's not complicated. I'm sure you have enough self control not to make a habit of it. We don't point every time on a checked swing, but it does come in handy. I don't point on every full swing now. It's a little over-cautious to think you couldn't do it correctly.

"TAG" does not imply anything other than the fact that there was ... a tag.

If the plate umpire hears "tag" before the runner crosses the plate and the out occurs (assuming they don't over-slide the base or anything odd that I have not seen in 3000 games), then no run. If "tag" occurs after the runner hits the plate, then score the run. If "tag" occurs before the runner crosses but there is no out, easy enough - continue the inning.

Give it a try. It's not at all difficult. I have full faith that even a first year umpire can say "tag" and not make a habit of it.

lol :d