Foul tip in the dirt mechanics and help?
 

Luckily, I've never had this happen to me or a partner, where a foul tip is judged caught when in fact it was not. What is the correct softball mechanic on a possible third-strike play like this one?

Denorfia gets a second chance | MLB.com

I think the PU should signal foul tip every time (I do) so that the base umpires know immediately that was the ruling. Should the BU volunteer some help without being asked?

Around here, the BU will generally use an umpire-to-umpire signal, arm at side with closed fist (caught) or open hand (not caught).

This is a good mechanic, and I didn't like when NCAA (and maybe others) changed it to eliminate the fist on a caught third strike. It's a subtle signal that helps the crew get immediate "second opinions" on a catch/no-catch, even on sinking line drives or short-hops.

I guess my original question was looking for suggestions for preventing problems when the PU either doesn't look at his partner, or is certain it was caught even though he was blocked out. Specifically, with the foul tip complicating things...This is easy-peasy on a standard U3K.

Unless it just happened, there is no approved ASA nor NFHS signal; it is the plate umpire's call, and he can get help, if he asks for it.

NCAA had both closed fist (caught) and point down (uncaught) for base umpires until last year (2014 manual?); unfortunately, there were TV games where U1 had one signal and U3 had the other. So, the current mechanic is for the open side umpire only (the one with check swing responsibility) to point down if uncaught only. It's still the plate umpire's primary call, with need to request help before a base umpire should step in.

AFAIK, not for this or anything else.

If a possible third strike, does "never guess a strike" apply?

Let's start with this is not a foul tip. As much as we harass others about the use of proper terminology, we should do so.

The problem with the signal is, as Steve noted, contradicting calls. And the teams do catch on and will jump on any hesitation or opposing signals.

OTOH, when are coaches, at any level, going to learn that just because something didn't happen they way they think it should, that a good call should be reversed?

The issue on this play, and what caused the confusion, in my opinion, is that I never saw the PU signal the ball was tipped. With him not signally the ball was tipped there becomes an issue with U3K or Foul Ball.

I think this is why Davison never comes up with the foul ball call on the play.

I agree with teebob that whenever there is a foul tip, the umpire should signal that. This lets EVERYONE know the ball was tipped, rather than a swing and miss. BU's can then assist, or if need be, make the foul ball call if the PU is blocked out.

I know personally I have been in the same position the PU is in. By signally the foul tip, and not a swinging strike, the BU has helped me by call foul ball when I have not realized it was not caught.

The worst ones are the ones when the pitch is so low the batters swing, the ball and home plate all seem to contact each other at the same time. Thankfully those usually occur far enough in front of the catch the PU has a good view (unless the catcher moves to block that view)

I knew this was coming. :) My original version of the post had a overwrought and wordy appeal to give me poetic license to not to have to call the play "a foul ball improperly ruled a foul tip" every time. I cut it out for brevity.

And I agree. Use book terms whenever possible.

Not to derail my own thread, but what about on a Batter/Runner-Hit-By-Batted-Ball dead ball? (Assuming a clear view, and a pause of appropriate duration to determine the PU is not going to call it b/c they didn't see it.)

Not that I do this, but it got me thinking...

If a BU sees a ball shoot sharply and directly to the dirt (with absolutely 0% doubt) then up into F2's mitt, and his partner does not (blocked out, whatever), how is this any different than a ball skipping off the side of the batter's foot (which we kill when we see it)?

By the way, the argument is not if the ball is caught in flight, but that the ball was never contacted by the bat at all (1:30 "he never touched it")