Dumb or useless mechanics

[millerforrest]

Let me start off with the foul tip mechanic/signal.

The only TRUE time this would ever come into necessity would be when a batter checks his swing and the ball hits the bat. Then the foul tip mechanic would be useful. But most times it is not. If the catcher drops a ball that hits the bat and goes directly to his hand or mitt, it becomes "foul". If the catcher hangs on to it, then it is just a "strike".

 

(2 man) - The "Timing" signal is pointless since the BU has basically NOTHING to do with the timing play in and of itself. It is all on the PU. So why does the BU have to signal by pointing to his wrist?

[noumpere]

I agree with you on the foul tip signal (although there are a few other times it might come into play).

 

The time play is useful to remind PU of it.  It is useless when it's R3 only and two outs -- there's no non-thirld-world play that has BR put out after reaching first and before R3.scores.

[maineump]

Both umpires should know the situations - the signals are just reminders. The more experienced umpires I work with or the higher the level I work - the signals become less 'technical' and are more just reminders between the crewmates.

 

I think the foul tip is just tradition and has a little flash to it - sort of like the Ron Luciano style out calls - some guys just punch outs and some twist themselves all out of shape.

 

My time play 'signal' is point at the plate and touch my left hand when doing it. It is more of a reminder to my partner that I am staying put. What does drive me nuts is when partner uses it for - man on third only, first and third or runner on first only.

 

If you use the signals, then know when to use them.

[noumpere]

. What does drive me nuts is when partner uses it for - man on third only, first and third or runner on first only.

 

If you use the signals, then know when to use them.

 

First and third, one out needs a time play and a rotation play (you can combine them into one).  Grounder to F3 who steps on first and then throws to second.  The tag will happen at about the same time as R3 crosses the plate.

 

First only also needs one -- esp with a 3-2 count and a fast runner you might get a out at second at about the time R1 reaches the plate.  I agree it's not often given, though.

[MidAmUmp]

Wrong and wrong again...Both are vital and necessary mechanics.

 

Foul tip mechanic - It is necessary to communicate you've had contact between the bat and the ball.  Just as you sometimes have to rely on your base umpire to communicate to you that a 3rd strike is either caught or not caught, the base umpire may know in this situation if the ball is a live ball or a foul ball.  He must know you have the bat contacting the ball.

 

Timing play mechanic - 1) both umpires on the crew need to be on the same page.  2) the base umpire needs to be aware of a potential timing play especially if there is a run down for the 3rd out.  He must acknowledge the time of the tag (pointing at the tag) to let the plate umpire know that's the time of the 3rd out.

[ALStripes17]

I agree with you on the foul tip signal (although there are a few other times it might come into play).

The time play is useful to remind PU of it. It is useless when it's R3 only and two outs -- there's no non-thirld-world play that has BR put out after reaching first and before R3.scores.

I have had a few times in the last 2 years where the defense threw behind the BR rounding 1st and R3 was lackadaisical in getting to home.

I do understand what you're saying though. Wasn't aware that any mechanics book wanted a time play for R3 only?

[noumpere]

Wrong and wrong again...Both are vital and necessary mechanics.

 

Foul tip mechanic - It is necessary to communicate you've had contact between the bat and the ball.  Just as you sometimes have to rely on your base umpire to communicate to you that a 3rd strike is either caught or not caught, the base umpire may know in this situation if the ball is a live ball or a foul ball.  He must know you have the bat contacting the ball.

If the ball is in the mitt (no deflection; no possible contact with the ground, etc.) then it doesn't matter whether it contacted the bat or not -- it's still live.  The signal tells the BU nothing.  The signal that is helpful is "time" if it's needed.

[millerforrest]

Wrong and wrong again? The signals are "vital"? Are you serious? Neither is VITAL....as I explained in the opening, the ONLY time a "foul tip" is actually necessary, is if a batter would check his swing and the ball made contact with the bat on the checked swing. In all other situations (i.e. full swings), if the catcher catches the "foul tip" its still just a strike. If he drops it, it then becomes foul. This is not rocket science. Not everything we have been taught is all relevant.

The timing plays are still only for the PU and his awareness. The base umpire has basically nothing to do with a timing play.

[Thunderheads]

Wrong and wrong again? The signals are "vital"? Are you serious? Neither is VITAL....as I explained in the opening, the ONLY time a "foul tip" is actually necessary, is if a batter would check his swing and the ball made contact with the bat on the checked swing. In all other situations (i.e. full swings), if the catcher catches the "foul tip" its still just a strike. If he drops it, it then becomes foul. This is not rocket science. Not everything we have been taught is all relevant.

The timing plays are still only for the PU and his awareness. The base umpire has basically nothing to do with a timing play.

So, you're going to post something on a board for discussion, then argue others viewpoints?

[Thunderheads]

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/54601-purpose-of-the-foul-tip-mechanic/

[Thunderheads]

from another site ....from a well established poster:

Only on FOUL TIPS.

Umpire school’s teach the FT mechanic to be done whenever the batter hits a foul tip. (A ball that touches the bat and goes sharp and direct to the catcher’s hand or mitt and is caught in flight.) Many new umpires erroneously make the foul tip signal when a tipped ball is fouled and is not caught. IOW a tip that becomes a foul ball, like a tip that goes back to the screen. This mistake is probably because they hear TV announcers mistakenly refer to any tipped ball that goes back to the screen as a "foul tip back to the screen." 

Carl Childress has long espoused that most FT mechanics are unnecessary because they do not convey any information that fielders need to know. The purpose of the FT mechanic is to alert the players that even though the bat touched the ball and the ball went backwards into foul territory, the ball is NOT a foul ball, but rather the ball remains alive.

Whenever a foul tip is hit by a batter it is always a strike. So whether we make the FT mechanic or not, it makes no difference to the batter. So the PU only needs to make the usual strike mechanic when there is a FT. Adding the FT mechanic does not tell us anything more than we can already see when the PU hammers a strike. 

The FT mechanic is really nothing more than the PU acknowledging that he recognized that the pitch touched the bat but the ball remains alive because the catcher caught it. If the ball was not caught the PU would make the foul ball mechanic (same as calling “time”). So one could argue that when the ball tips the bat, the PU’s not making a foul ball mechanic implies that the ball is a foul tip. 

So why is there a FT mechanic? Why do we need to know when there is a FT? The only time we need to know that there was a foul tip is when there is a runner on base who is stealing on the pitch. 

For the offense: If a runner is stealing while the pitch is in flight, he needs to know whether he must return to his base if the ball was foul. 

For the defense: They need to know that if a runner is off base, then can attempt to retire him. 

Again, however, one could argue that when the ball tips the bat, the PU’s not making a foul ball mechanic implies that the ball is a foul tip. 

[millerforrest]

You mean like when someone tells me "Wrong. And wrong again." Like that?

[millerforrest]

I know the mechanic..... but I am asking you not to be a BLIND SHEEP.....to think using "reasoning" and think for yourself.

[millerforrest]

The runner does not need to know if there was a FT. If the catcher drops it, it becomes a "FOUL". If he holds on to it, its still just a strike. Hence the reason that the ONLY viable situation where a FT is actually NECESSARY is if a batter CHECKS HIS SWING but the ball makes contact with the bat and it goes directly to the catchers mitt. Therefore, even though the batter did NOT offer at the pitch, the ball still made contact with the bat therefore necessitating the FT mechanic as to show why a strike is being called.

[Thunderheads]

I know the mechanic..... but I am asking you not to be a BLIND SHEEP.....to think using "reasoning" and think for yourself.

calm down.

 

did I say you were wrong?  Let's go back and look, ...hang on a second...................

 

NOPE!! I didn't say you were wrong.  What I said was .... you posted something on here for discussion, and you get a 'counter-point' to your point, and you seem to get a little pi$$y about it.  Then, I posted some other points of discussion for all to read.

[JaxRolo]

I was picking a booger out of my nose once and my partner thought I was signaling something!

[treydawgmt]

@millerforrest while I don't necessarily disagree with you, I see value in the FT mechanic. Coaches will sometimes ask a partner that didn't signal FT "did he tip it?" Does it really matter, no. But it helps sell to everyone yes, I can see things back here, I know he tipped it.

Plus, Jason (MidAmUmp) answered and agrees its necessary. He is one of the best umpires on this board, teaches some amazing clinics, umpires D1 ball on a regular basis. You should at least value his opinion, even if you don't agree with it. (No one here ever agrees with everyone all the time.)

What DOES bother me is many of my partners lately signal a timing play on EVERY SINGLE 2 out play. May as well signal a timing play then with bases loaded and no body out. It is "possible" I suppose.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Umpire in Chief]

When I first started umpiring we had a "wipe off" signal to communicate that the prior signal was no longer valid like rotation or IFF being off. 

 

We have since gotten rid of the signal since when the situation changes you just give the new signal and it was useless. 

 

Even as a rookie I didn't understand the need for the signal and was glad when we ditched it. But we will still see it rear it's ugly head from time to time.

[scrounge]

When I first started umpiring we had a "wipe off" signal to communicate that the prior signal was no longer valid like rotation or IFF being off. 

 

We have since gotten rid of the signal since when the situation changes you just give the new signal and it was useless. 

 

Even as a rookie I didn't understand the need for the signal and was glad when we ditched it. But we will still see it rear it's ugly head from time to time.

 

We still use that one, to wipe off IFF. And to be honest, from time to time I've found it useful. Not as much when there's a hit or something, but there have been a couple occasions, such as a wild pitch when R1 and R2 advance, where I'd be watching the ball or potential play and forget the IFF is now off. The signal reminded me.

[Thunderheads]

 

When I first started umpiring we had a "wipe off" signal to communicate that the prior signal was no longer valid like rotation or IFF being off. 

 

We have since gotten rid of the signal since when the situation changes you just give the new signal and it was useless. 

 

Even as a rookie I didn't understand the need for the signal and was glad when we ditched it. But we will still see it rear it's ugly head from time to time.

 

We still use that one, to wipe off IFF. And to be honest, from time to time I've found it useful. Not as much when there's a hit or something, but there have been a couple occasions, such as a wild pitch when R1 and R2 advance, where I'd be watching the ball or potential play and forget the IFF is now off. The signal reminded me.

 

I agree.

this has come up before ..........and there were quite a few people that mentioned that this is a "rookie" mechanic, or "sophomoric" if you will.  I just don't get it ....what's the big flipping deal?  Why can't you give your partner a subtle mechanic to communicate IFF has gone away.  You DON'T want to ring that bell if it isn't supposed to be rung, right?  What's the harm?

[ALStripes17]

When I first started umpiring we had a "wipe off" signal to communicate that the prior signal was no longer valid like rotation or IFF being off.

We have since gotten rid of the signal since when the situation changes you just give the new signal and it was useless.

Even as a rookie I didn't understand the need for the signal and was glad when we ditched it. But we will still see it rear it's ugly head from time to time.

We still use that one, to wipe off IFF. And to be honest, from time to time I've found it useful. Not as much when there's a hit or something, but there have been a couple occasions, such as a wild pitch when R1 and R2 advance, where I'd be watching the ball or potential play and forget the IFF is now off. The signal reminded me.

I agree.

this has come up before ..........and there were quite a few people that mentioned that this is a "rookie" mechanic, or "sophomoric" if you will. I just don't get it ....what's the big flipping deal? Why can't you give your partner a subtle mechanic to communicate IFF has gone away. You DON'T want to ring that bell if it isn't supposed to be rung, right? What's the harm?

It's pretty sophomoric to signal to rotate to, since it happens so frequently. Heck, let's just get rid of umpire communication altogether :)

[grayhawk]

I find that giving the signal for the new situation is sufficient.

[Thunderheads]

I find that giving the signal for the new situation is sufficient.

this got me to thinking .....(not directed at Steve, but his comment made me think............)

 

is there reason to give a signal EVERY time ... w/ runners on base?

[basejester]

So, you're going to post something on a board for discussion, then argue others viewpoints? 

I think the reason millerforrest is hostile is the response doesn't address the points he's raising.  He's looking for either agreement or a new insight.  Obviously there's a tradition behind the foul tip mechanic and we're probably going to continuing doing it for that reason alone.  That's a different argument from the mechanic having intrinsic logic and necessity. 

 

*Why* does anyone need to know the ball was knicked before it was caught?  There's occasionally some explanatory value, but it's not the call or information that the players need to react to.

 

Compare it to,  "Safe! He's off the bag!  Safe!"  Does it make any difference to the players on the field *why* he's safe?  Not really, not at the moment.  I think the strike mechanic and THEN foul tip when helpful makes a lot more sense.  (The information the players need comes first and then the explanation.)

[noumpere]

 

I find that giving the signal for the new situation is sufficient.

this got me to thinking .....(not directed at Steve, but his comment made me think............)

 

is there reason to give a signal EVERY time ... w/ runners on base?

 

No -- you only need to give it when one of the umpires "forgets" the situation.  If you have the ability to know when that is, good for you.  For most of us, though, we don't know when that is so signaling is the better choice.

[millerforrest]

Signals are over rated. Yes, I will take a beating over this but how many times have we signaled our partner only to adapt to what happens on the field. For example, runner on 1b. We signal PU points to 3b and BU points to 1b. But the batter hits a gapper. R1 gets to 3b and possibly tries to score. Now PU yells out "staying home". Its an adjustment we all make. Or how many times have we signaled IFF yet forget to verbalize it when it happens?