mechanics again

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Is it the distance from the play that reduces the value of the signal, or the obviousness?

Is there a difference? Increased distance would seem to equate to increased obviousness, wouldn't it?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Is there a difference? Increased distance would seem to equate to increased obviousness, wouldn't it?

In many circumstances, yes. I'm trying to probe for the rationale of an obvious routine fly-out signal from 150 feet being absurd, yet few would question the signal we make every time for an obvious swinging strike.

EDIT: Now I'm really thinking about this. In some cases, increased distance requires a stronger sell on close plays. (Example: Basically every close call we make from C at 1B in 2-man.) Why would the inverse be true: less "conviction" on the call when it is super obvious from a distance? I don't want an evaluator to think I am being nonchalant on the "easy ones", let alone the teams.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

In many circumstances, yes. I'm trying to probe for the rationale of an obvious routine fly-out signal from 150 feet being absurd, yet few would question the signal we make every time for an obvious swinging strike.

Again, and again, and again, and..........the signals are for those removed from the play and/or umpire.

And they are a matter of consistency. Few years back when playing in the Richmond round-robin, I ran into an umpire who had fallen into the "I'll signal when I feel it is necessary" mentality.

This guy was absolutely terrible. The problem with his belief was that his idea of necessary and the teams' were miles apart. He NEVER offered a safe signal and his strike/out hammer never got above his shoulder.

I believe it is a matter of routine, consistency and professionalism. And, again, a matter of communication.