Approved Mechanic? (ASA)
 

I think this has been discussed before, but want current thinking.

ASA - ump-to-ump communications:
Signalling two outs by placing the two fingers from right hand somewhere near/at the wrist of the left hand.

Someone recently suggested that this was not an approved mechanic.
Please advise.

Not sure if that's an approved mechanic or not, but that's what I give to my partner when there are two outs with a runner on base, to let him/her know we have a potential time play. Without runners, I don't bother giving that mechanic.

The "timing play" signal is not an approved mechanic.

So ... don't do it at clinics.

Every SINGLE umpire I know (other than rookies, who learn soon enough) uses this signal.

Do you see it listed among all of the approved signals in the umpire manual?

No, but wouldn't this be part of communicating with your partner?

I guess it would be, but the question was "Is this an approved ASA signal".

What is ASA's rational for it not being an approved signal?

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. :p

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

And where did they go to? :p

MTD, Sr.

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.

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. :p

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)??

I fully agree, "offer" was more a language comment than a rules comment, I only use "swing".
"Attempt" is more correct and more generic, as soon as the rain stops, I'll "attempt" ;) :) to remember it.

Plated, like a lot of other usage, seems to be just announcers trying to sound more interesting. And I generally dislike nouns being used as verbs, also.

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

I agree. I can't stand people that noun their verbs.

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

:d

OK, here's my 2 cents.

On both mechanics.

1) Did she go? - I always step out, point at my partner, loudly say his / her name (followed by) "Did she go". - I have never had any assignor or evaluator comment that I should do something different.

2) "timing play" ("unauthorized" :rolleyes: ASA mechanic)

Up until January of this year, I have always used this mechanic as did most everyone I remember. HOWEVER, in January, I was working an ASA sanctioned game and gave it to my partner in "C" and he shook his head no.
I gave him a quizzical look and repeated the signal and he again shook his head no. (I KNEW there were 2 outs - and I knew there were runners on 1st and 2nd:eek:) He again shook his head no and pointed to the ASA on his hat.
We went on with the game and afterwords I asked him and that is the first I had heard about the signal "not existing" in ASA.....
I then inquired of a few others including a High School evaluator who commented that not using the "timing play" signal is one of the things he looks for when evaluating.
So this year, I have stopped using the "timing play" signal for HS or ASA games.

Any other tournament games, I start of not using it, but if I get a partner who uses it, I do also.
My philosophy there is, I really don't give a sh1t, let's play ball.

NCAA Games get the "2 out signal" from me

That is also my philosophy with those that use the IF signal and stick out one finger (to indicate one out - although I am always tempted to ask what the signal is with 2 outs!! - yuk, yuk, yuk)


I just do what I'm told.

I still can't figure out why NCAA wants us to use the timing play signal with two outs and no runners on base. It makes no sense. I've heard instructors say, "it is just a way to let your partner(s) know that there are two outs." Well, then let's signal no outs or one out as well, just to be consistent. Of course, that is all over-officious.

What else have people heard about signaling when there's no one on?

Double fist bump! The ball hit the plate!

But a timing play does not require the pitch be made with two outs. There is the possibility of a timing play any time you have as many players on base as you need outs to end the half-inning.

And, IMO, when the play starts with two outs is the time a signal is the least needed.

True, I've often (well sometime, not often) thought about that.

But as I said, I don't really care, I just want to figure out what the guy who is or is not going to ask me to do the next game wants.
I've got more things to do.
Heck in my HS association, they do want to signal no outs, 1 out or 2 outs.
And you know what, with no scoreboard (or worse yet inaccurate scoreboard operators) , sometimes that's not a bad idea.
:D

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.

Never had that happen, but can certainly understand the need to check if that occurred.

Well, I certainly respect your opinion. I find it rather amusing that you would let something like that bother you so much.

And, Yes, I do use the word "Offer". Have been for as long as I can remember, and until I read your post, I never heard of anyone saying anything negative about it. True, it's not in a rule book or manual. But what is in a rule book is "Did they go?" and I feel that makes less sense. I simply point and say, "She offered." No evaluator or assignor has ever told me to lose the word.

For me, I don't get too hung up on anything that adds a little--just a little--individuality to the craft. If my partner says, "Swing" or "Yes" or "She went" or whatever, I honestly could care less. I'm more concerned that my partner saw the attempt and acknowledged it accordingly with the appropriate physical mechanic. Maybe it's the baseball umpire in me, but I don't see why we all have to look and sound like automatons out there.

Now, I'm not suggesting we should all have our own unique Strike mechanic like you see in MLB. But when it comes to subtle hand signals to partners, variances in verbal calls, etc., how does that tarnish the quality of umpires out there? I'd rather have a partner who looks sharp, hustles, gets into the right position, and shows sound judgment. After he/she does all that, and then tops it off with "She's out" or "Out" or "HAAAAAAA!", no biggie.

But that's just my opinion, FWIW.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't say "Full Count" and bump two fists together. And I threw away my two-seamer years ago. :D

1) I worked with a 2 seam cap guy this weekend.

2) Speaking of things "others" say that get under one's skin..... where the heck did "MY TIME" come from?

From Mr. Hand. Everyone knows that.

One of my pet peeves is home plate being referred to the "dish" I have had many partners ask me if I wanted to work the dish the first or second game. The only dish I work is at dinner time. Dave

Odd. "plate" doesn't bother you but "dish" does? They both evolve from the same place. "Dish" has been around since before any of us were born. And I'm sure you work plates at dinner time too.

Geez, y'all really ought to lay off the caffeine. :)

I have no problem with umpires referring to the plate as "dish", indicators as "clickers", going to the outfield as "chasing", and taking responsibility for third base as "Going to Three".

Heck, I can even tolerate (much to my baseball counterparts) our southpaw umpires who signal outs with their left hand.

What I do have a problem with is unshined shoes, salt-crusted caps, and laziness.

How do you're baseball buddies feel about vebalizing DEAD BALL? :rolleyes:

About the same as when I verbalize "Strike" while I'm down, and then come up with the mechanic.

About the same as when I verbalize "Obstruction" and hold my left arm out on catcher's interference.

About the same as when I verbalize "Illegal Pitch" on a balk.

About the same as when... :p

I don't know why people get so upset at using they as opposed to he or she or him or her as it is quite acceptable. From Merriam-Webster:

The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

Really, how much less could you care?

I've never been to any clinic or school where someone was corrected about wording unless it was something inappropriate or not fitting the need. Now, when you start having umpires flapping THEIR arms or tapping THEIR cap or make some other weird type of movements, you can appreciate a standard level of communications. You can also appreciate it when you walk on the field with someone from another part of the country, if not another country, and you can actually understand what they are saying or signaling.

Agree, though I think it is a bit more professional without the pronouns.

I've never worn anything less than a six-stitch, even back in the 60s. Never liked the "beanies". Always thought they took away from a professional look, but that's just me. And the count is always 3-2, not full.

Who decided that umpires shouldn't say "full count?" It's descriptive. It's short. Everyone knows what it means. Why did it become a problem to say it? But for the fact that someone told you not to say "full count" when you were learning to umpire, would you ever have thought it would be inappropriate?

Along the same lines, why are clinicians so anal about using, "Two balls, two strikes" rather than allowing umpires to say "Two and two?" Who doesn't know what "two and two" means? I've heard a clinician "correct" an umpire asking, "What is 'two and two?'" "It's four!" :D NOT!

When you can't give even a little leeway in how you give the count, it isn't hard to figure out why people think that most umpires on TV look like robots.

It's basically a matter of communication.
Consistancy in reporting the count lessens the chance for misunderstanding.

Sorry, Hugo, but the next time a player or coach misunderstands what I'm saying when I say "full count, "two and two", or even "two two" will be the first.

The formal "Three Balls, One Strike" verbal and mechanic is, IMHO, to keep everyone--players, coaches, scorekeepers, fans, concession stand workers--informed. But when I'm asked by the batter or catcher what the count is, I will always respond with either, "Three One", or even "Thirty One". Nobody has ever looked at me sideways.

As you mentioned in another thread, this is a case of dumbing things down that has become acceptable.

Perhaps. But a good pre-game with partners would remedy this.

No argument, to a point. It is more a matter of convenience when I use it.

You pre-game all your signals? Want to know my pre-game? "everything by the book" does it. :D

Seriously though, I have walked onto fields with people I have never seen before and we are immediately speaking the same language which makes the game that much more enjoyable for all, including the teams.

It isn't a problem as long as everyone understand what it means. Remember, not all games with all associations use 4-3. Retaining the 4-3 was one of the reasons the slow pitch rules don't change the required balls or strikes, but just add one to each side when the batter enters the box.

In some SP games, the count can actually be 3-3 where a courtesy foul is allowed. So which is full, 3-2 or 3-3? Is this rare? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean teams can get confused when they play in a different area and umpires are using different verbiage or the same verbiage to mean different things.

It is anal, but what happens when you have an umpire who doesn't give a ball-strike count but a strike-ball count. Or gives the count properly, but uses the opposite hands to indicate the count?

I have seen this and not from rookie umpires. It should never be different, but apparently it is somewhere, sometime.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that.

If I know my partner, and/or we are from the same association, we really don't need to pre-game signals. But when I started working with other umpires from other associations early on, I had to deal with signals that I was familiar with only because I started out as a baseball umpire. The tap on top of the cap for ball/strike count, the fist or index finger to the cap bill for IFF situation, etc.; I've seen them. So now I just check when I'm doing games with them.

I also let them know of non-approved signals that I may give them. For example, when I'm on bases, I will let them know that I will give them a Catch or No Catch indication on a third strike when the U3K is on.

The only problem with that is the players and coaches catch on and if your partner doesn't reflect the signal they see from you, there will be an unnecessary delay in the game :rolleyes:

I like this signal, but don't like it unsolicited for exactly the reason Mike said. I always pregame this and tell partner that if I see eye contact, I'll give him that signal quickly... if I don't, I won't. Allows you to ask for help quickly and seamlessly, and occasionally quickly is called for in this case.

Agreed. My pre-game starts with "We're all following standard mechanics today, right?" With an answer of YES, it gets pretty short. With any other answer, the pre-game gets a bit longer.

I wish it was that easy all the time. Too many times I've arrived to work with a new partner, and said something similar - they always answer yes. Then they make some signal in the middle of the first inning that makes me go, "HUH? What in the world was that?!?!"


"We're following all standard mechanics" gives that guy who has no idea what standard mechanics are a chance to appear like he does - those guys will always simply say yes because they don't want to deal with a pre-game.

They do with me because I trained them. And if they don't like the pre-game, they certainly will not like the inning-by-inning evaluation.:D