Approved Mechanic? (ASA)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My opinion is because it isn't necessary and it is not consistent..

If a crew is on top of it, one could argue that none of the signals to keep each other informed are necessary.

The "approved" ASA mechanics leave a lot to be desired. For example, when the PU asks for help on a checked swing, the book tells us to say, "Did they go?" "They"? There's only one batter up there, chief.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

If a crew is on top of it, one could argue that none of the signals to keep each other informed are necessary.

The "approved" ASA mechanics leave a lot to be desired. For example, when the PU asks for help on a checked swing, the book tells us to say, "Did they go?" "They"? There's only one batter up there, chief.

Not to mention that "go" doesn't seem to accurately reflect language in the rule book.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Manny A

If a crew is on top of it, one could argue that none of the signals to keep each other informed are necessary.

The "approved" ASA mechanics leave a lot to be desired. For example, when the PU asks for help on a checked swing, the book tells us to say, "Did they go?" "They"? There's only one batter up there, chief.

And where did they go to?

MTD, Sr.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

If a crew is on top of it, one could argue that none of the signals to keep each other informed are necessary.

The "approved" ASA mechanics leave a lot to be desired. For example, when the PU asks for help on a checked swing, the book tells us to say, "Did they go?" "They"? There's only one batter up there, chief.

Well, that isn't to what I was referring, but apparently too many umpires had a hard time understanding a point and "Swing?"

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, that isn't to what I was referring, but apparently too many umpires had a hard time understanding a point and "Swing?"

Not sure you want to limit that to umpires.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not sure you want to limit that to umpires.

Maybe not, but who "should" know especially after the training offered and publication of the mechanic?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Maybe not, but who "should" know especially after the training offered and publication of the mechanic?

Problem is, "Swing?" isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations. If the batter tries to bunt and misses, but the plate umpire didn't see it, a "No" response to "Swing?" would technically be correct.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Problem is, "Swing?" isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations. If the batter tries to bunt and misses, but the plate umpire didn't see it, a "No" response to "Swing?" would technically be correct.

I will still stay "swing" and expect my partner to know a bunt is a type of "swing". Although, maybe "offer" is more generic, including bunt, slap, going for home run, etc.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I will still stay "swing" and expect my partner to know a bunt is a type of "swing". Although, maybe "offer" is more generic, including bunt, slap, going for home run, etc.

Just my opinion, but asking "Offer?" sounds like crap. As do the few partners that have verbalized "On the Offer!!"

I suggest you lose that word; there is no offer, I don't believe that word even exists in a rule book or manual. I think you can consider an offer every time the batter even reacts, and the dugout says "she wanted it".

There has been an "ATTEMPT" to contact the ball with the bat. And the best way to deal with those that have issues understanding any part of the game is to strictly use rulebook terminology; any local colloquialism that supposedly "means the same thing" isn't what the game uses. One of my better local umpires is constantly getting in a bind because he always has a different way to explain everything OTHER than using the rulebook verbiage. He is constantly trying to explain why it is the "same thing, just different", instead of using the right words to begin with.

I guess little stuff makes me cringe. When I hear "offer" on a ball field, I expect that umpire to also announce "full count" and hold up two fists. He may also have a two stitch beanie in his equipment bag somewhere.

And while on the topic of words that make me cringe, I thought the offense "scored" runs by touching home plate. When did plate become a verb (as in "plated" a run)??

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Problem is, "Swing?" isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations. If the batter tries to bunt and misses, but the plate umpire didn't see it, a "No" response to "Swing?" would technically be correct.

If you have to check on a bunt, you may want to move over to slow pitch

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If you have to check on a bunt, you may want to move over to slow pitch

The recent requirement to "draw back" has caused more defensive requests;
but this also was about linguistics, as well as rules & judgment.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If you have to check on a bunt, you may want to move over to slow pitch

I've had the few occasions where the batter starts to square and then the catcher stands up to receive a high pitch. It happens.