New mechanic

[Tksjewelry]

So a stud muffin in our association is heading off to the minors shortly and he was in the office today. We were discussing some of the training items on their umpire website. On there was a new mechanic MiLB umpires are to use this year:

BR misses first base, instead of signaling safe, the new mechanic is no call.

I'm not a fan of the new mechanic, it's almost telling the defense that the runner missed the base. Opinions?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[bam]

i've always thought the safe signal at first gave an advantage to the offense (who missed the base!), and how is it any different from the home plate mechanic ( not interested in semantic arguments about the difference between touching first and touching home).

But i'm more interested in the description of the MiLB'er as "stud muffin".  

 

Details....

 

[Cav]

The pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth, back and forth. 

[noumpere]

10 minutes ago, bam said:

i've always thought the safe signal at first gave an advantage to the offense (who missed the base!), and how is it any different from the home plate mechanic ( not interested in semantic arguments about the difference between touching first and touching home).

But i'm more interested in the description of the MiLB'er as "stud muffin".  

 

Details....

 

It's as easy as ...

 

Oh, never mind.

 

It's a term I'm all too familiar with.  I recognize that you might not be.

[Richvee]

So, BR beats the throw, misses 1st as he passes it. F3 isnow standing there with the ball in his glove,foot on the base and BR is 15 feet up the line, everyone's looking at you and you do/say/signal ....nothing??? Just seems wrong.

[Kevin_K]

Is it any more wrong when the play is at the plate?

[ALStripes17]

Is it any more wrong when the play is at the plate?

We have a specific rule that governs the play on the BR at 1B. Depends on the interpretation of 'beats the throw.' I think that allows us to treat 1B much different than HP

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

Is it any more wrong when the play is at the plate?

Mechanic is the same on a FORCE play at the plate: signal to indicate whether ball beat runner, pending appeal.

The problem with the (now it seems, "old") mechanic is that umpires are the only ones who know it. When we signal safe, it seems that we are ruling on the touch.

[Richvee]

13 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Is it any more wrong when the play is at the plate?

Like Maven says, on a force at the plate the mechanic is (was) the same. On a missed tag and missed plate, no signal is more commonly understood. Standing looking at first base and saying nothing as everyone's looking for a call seems to be rather awkward to say the least.

I'm guessing with this new mechanic the defense would be obligated to tag the BR before he returns to the base? Or can they still verbally appeal while standing on the bag? Or if he's not tagged and returns to the base, at that point we signal "safe"?

Seems to me we're telling the defense BR missed first if we say nothing. The onus should be on the defense to realize on their own when a runner misses a base. JMO.

 

[Tksjewelry]

I did get a chance to use this today. Grounder to the short stop who bobbled the ball. BR ran right over the base and didn't come anywhere close to hitting it. Then he took his sweet time getting back to the base. No one even noticed I didn't signal, and I'm shocked considering who the coaches were and the level of play.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[basejester]

“SAFE” is a declaration by the umpire that a runner is entitled to the base for which he was trying.

Does that help us?  *shrug*

 

[noumpere]

15 hours ago, Tksjewelry said:

I did get a chance to use this today. Grounder to the short stop who bobbled the ball. BR ran right over the base and didn't come anywhere close to hitting it. Then he took his sweet time getting back to the base. No one even noticed I didn't signal, and I'm shocked considering who the coaches were and the level of play.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

If he had hit the base, would you have signaled?  My guess is, no.  So, do the same thing when he doesn't hit the base -- and that's probably when no one noticed.

[Welpe]

I think I'm going to be waiting on this to see how it filters down.

[maven]

3 hours ago, Welpe said:

I think I'm going to be waiting on this to see how it filters down.

Yeah, PBUC adopts some "experimental" mechanics to generate data. But the n here is going to be pretty small, even/especially in pro ball, so I'm not sure what's up.

It could be that someone came to power who has always had a bugaboo for that particular mechanic and promised himself it would be the first thing he changed in the manual.

I'll hold my breath too.

[Sut'n Blue]

On May 15, 2016 at 7:53 PM, maven said:

Mechanic is the same on a FORCE play at the plate: signal to indicate whether ball beat runner, pending appeal.

The problem with the (now it seems, "old") mechanic is that umpires are the only ones who know it. When we signal safe, it seems that we are ruling on the touch.

Can you tell me where  it says this is the preferred mechanic? I would like to read it.

Thank you.

 

 

[kstrunk]

I had a similar play yesterday. BR hits ball hard to F6, who quickly but inaccurately throws to F3, pulling F3 off the bag to catch the throw. BR stops running thinking he's out, but F3 never touched the bag with possession. BR is walking toward 1B (talking to his coach), doesn't touch and begins to turn to return to the dugout when his coaches realize I haven't made a call and begin yelling for him to get on 1B. He complied, I called 'safe, he's off the bag, never touched the bag with possession, he's safe!'. The ball had already been returned to the pitcher. BR did not abandon. Not a word from either side, but my 'no call' was the clue for the offense. 

[udbrky]

Wait, you say he stopped running and walked to 1B. Where was he when he stopped?

[kstrunk]

15 minutes ago, udbrky said:

Where was he when he stopped?

Ehhh, 8-10 ft. short of the bag. 

[udbrky]

How can you call safe or out then? BR never reached the base, so he can't be safe. F3 never touched the base, so he can't be out. Seems like a pretty easy hold of your call imo.

[lawump]

New MiLBUD Mechanic:

(1)  The B/R must be completely beyond first base to employ the new "give no signal" mechanic.  Thus, if he is still in the vicinity of the bag (say his lead foot is on the dirt beyond first base and his trail foot is still over the bag (and he has not touched the bag, at all)), bang the runner out as he is not "completely beyond" the base.    Thus, the Jaksa/Roder concept of having "acquired" the base is gone (at least for this play).

(2)  If applicable, the defense must clearly indicate that they are appealing a missed base.  (For instance, if F3 gloves F6's throw (while still touching first base) after the B/R is three steps beyond the base (and the B/R did not touch the base on his way by)...the B/R is not out by this alone.  Rather, F3 must also indicate that he is appealing the missed base.

(3)  I'm not sure, yet, how they want to handle this issue if it is (to use Jacksa/Roder terms) and "unrelaxed" appeal (meaning the B/R realizes he missed the base and is trying to return immediately)...does the defense now have to tag the runner, or can they still appeal by touching first base?  I don't know the answer to that one, yet.  I think I will continue to rule on this type of play ("unrelaxed" appeal) as set forth in Jaksa/Roder (must tag the runner) as I don't think they are making a rule change...they're making a mechanic change.

Expect this to be added to the MiLBUD manual next year.  As for the reason why they adopted this, I didn't bother to ask.  I'm having lunch at the ballpark tomorrow with the MiLBUD director; maybe I'll find out then...or maybe not.  LOL

[noumpere]

Other than the "no signal" part of this, items 1 and 2 ("completely by the base" and "unmistakeable appeal") are how I've always done it

[maven]

WUM has an interp saying that a missed base appeal can be made by tagging the base, whether or not the runner is trying to return. So J/R loses twice here: once on the signal, once on the "relaxed/unrelaxed" action appeal.