mechanics again

[CecilOne]

I can't find the topic where we discussed signals for "nothings".

I was instructed to signal safe on any no-catch of an uncaught batted fly ball; although using the fair signal for those near the line.

This came up because of a trapped line drive which all the players thought was caught.

Opinions, confirmations, corrections ???

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I can't find the topic where we discussed signals for "nothings".

I was instructed to signal safe on any no-catch of an uncaught batted fly ball; although using the fair signal for those near the line.

This came up because of a trapped line drive which all the players thought was caught.

Opinions, confirmations, corrections ???

Officiate when you need to officiate it. This seems like a situation that needs to be officiated.

[jwwashburn]

There is absolutely no reason to signal safe on obvious no catch situations. We would not signal "Safe" on a solen base play when the catcher throws the ball into center field, right?

I signal "Safe" on a close no catch and give a verbal 'NO" as well.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I can't find the topic where we discussed signals for "nothings".

I was instructed to signal safe on any no-catch of an uncaught batted fly ball; although using the fair signal for those near the line.

This came up because of a trapped line drive which all the players thought was caught.

Opinions, confirmations, corrections ???

One the line, you only have three options, fair, foul or out. Anywhere else you have an out or no catch, though I would refrain from verbalizing it since many only hear the "catch" part which isn't a valid call.

Don't call anything if it is obvious other than a routine out, it that applies.

[EsqUmp]

It is as absurd to signal a routine catch as it is to signal a routine non-catch. Plus, in most situations associations, the person signaling it is 150 feet away, is not the closest umpire and no one is looking back away from the ball to see an umpire that far away.

[BretMan]

I observed an umpire this weekend that gave a big, double-pumping safe signal on EVERY uncaught fly ball hit to the outfield, even if no fielder was within 50 feet of the ball.

Where do guys come up with this stuff? Do they ever attend any training? Does their association ever evaluate them in games?

This was just one in a long line of goofy mechanics I've seen lately. Maybe that would be a good topic for another thread...

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

It is as absurd to signal a routine catch as it is to signal a routine non-catch. Plus, in most situations associations, the person signaling it is 150 feet away, is not the closest umpire and no one is looking back away from the ball to see an umpire that far away.

Esq, you frequently have interesting opinions. Just curious about this line of thought: Is it the distance from the play that reduces the value of the signal, or the obviousness?

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

It is as absurd to signal a routine catch as it is to signal a routine non-catch. Plus, in most situations associations, the person signaling it is 150 feet away, is not the closest umpire and no one is looking back away from the ball to see an umpire that far away.

I haven't been to a camp in a while, but I always thought the Out mechanic was required for all outs on the bases and all catches of fly balls, even when they are routine.

Whenever I'm the PU and I take the fly ball responsibility because my partner(s) come inside, I give a verbal (in normal voice) "Catch" and Out signal. When I chase as BU, I don't verbalize an obvious catch, but I do signal.

Are we now saying this is wrong?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...Are we now saying this is wrong?

Define "we"!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Define "we"!

Without resorting to schizophrenia.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Without resorting to schizophrenia.

Knew a schizophrenic once... he was good people.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Are we now saying this is wrong?

"We" would infer to yourself and at least one other person.

I can tell you as a matter of fact, I'm not that person