"That's nothing"

[grayhawk]

I replied to a Youtube video where there was a potential for batter's interference and the consensus was that the batter didn't interfere. No big deal. I added that the only thing I would have liked to see PU do was to give the "That's nothing" signal (same as the "safe" signal) and give a verbal, "That's nothing" to show that he saw it and judged it to be no violation. Nothing controversial, or so I thought. I was surprised to see the number of umpires that disagreed. It got me wondering if this is a regional thing. I do know I've seen it mentioned in videos put out by the NCAA so I know the expectation when working NCAA games.

What say you, UE? Does anyone think this mechanic is a bad one?

[Mudisfun]

Was at a clinic a few years back with an instructor from Nor Cal. Working inside, ball hit to F4 as R1 was running in the vicinity. I signaled and verbally indicated 'that's nothing' and was told chastised for using this mechanic. All of the So Cal people were confused as we all use it and are expected to use it... so I think this may be a regional thing.

[BLWizzRanger]

Why did they disagree?

My board/region uses it and wouldn't it help everyone understand that, yes, you saw it and no, there was nothing? Common sense to me.

[ArchAngel72]

I have been told here to use "That was nothing"  for stuff like R1 running behind F4 and F4 Buckner's the ball and it hits R1.

At the time my PU called time and put R1 out at which we got together and spoke about it. Then moved R1 to 2nd and allowed BR to stay at 1st ( there was no play on him and he would have been clearly safe )

I asked here about it and was advised I should have "That was nothing and made a safe signal"

 

I asked about this mechanic in Bristol as no one had ever told us there about it.  They poo poo'd it and stated make a safe signal and leave it at that. Let the play go its course.

I asked specifically about "That was nothing" and was told NO.. shouldn't be using that.

 

I like the verbiage myself.  But I will do what they say going fwd.

 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

Was at a clinic a few years back with an instructor from Nor Cal.

 

1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

Was at a clinic a few years back with an instructor from Nor Cal. Working inside, ball hit to F4 as R1 was running in the vicinity. I signaled and verbally indicated 'that's nothing' and was told chastised for using this mechanic.

HS or LL? Issue was the sign, the verbal, or both?

8 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I asked about this mechanic in Bristol as no one had ever told us there about it. 

Bristol = LL East Region?

 

I'm seeing a LL West Region instructor tonight. I'll ask him.

[ArchAngel72]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

 

HS or LL? Issue was the sign, the verbal, or both?

Bristol = LL East Region?

 

I'm seeing a LL West Region instructor tonight. I'll ask him.

LL and yes Bristol  but know this was 2 plus years ago I think.  Its been at least over a year since I went and well things do change.

 

[maven]

In officiating any sport, we work for supervisors. They have views—sometimes strong views—about proper mechanics. If they tell you to do something a certain way that conflicts with other instruction or training that you've received, I recommend that you do it the supervisor's way for the games you work for that supervisor. To do otherwise would risk those assignments in future.

As for the "that's nothing + safe signal" mechanic, it was part of my training in pro school (I don't recall it taught specifically for a batted ball through a fielder, but in general). The rationale for it is that we are making a call, and our job is communicate. Verbalizing and signaling communicates the no-call.

That said, for some levels of youth ball, whenever an umpire verbalizes something, some players will stop and look at the umpire. That might be what "Bristol" is saying, that the cure is worse than the disease. Maybe so, for those levels. But we can use other/additional tools: we can modulate or lower our voices to be less distracting, add "play on, play on!" or the like, and continue to communicate after the initial ruling. 

For me, communication is like chocolate: more is generally better, at least to a point. 

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Why did they disagree?

My board/region uses it and wouldn't it help everyone understand that, yes, you saw it and no, there was nothing? Common sense to me.

They were saying that nothing needs no call, and that verbalizing will confuse the players and they’ll stop playing. I’ve been taught, and have taught this mechanic from when I worked LL on up. I’ve never had a player stop playing because of it. Use it when it’s prudent to do so and it can keep your ass out of the jackpot more often than not. 

[Velho]

58 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

They were saying that nothing needs no call,

Context matters:

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I replied to a Youtube video

(said mostly partially a bit only half joking)

Good on you for engaging (I try to as well - it wasn't me on the other side of that, I swear) but it can only go so far. U-E is the real deal for discussion - and the cleanse the doubt those exchanges can generate.  😉

[Vegas_Ump]

I think the Tangle/Untangle play close to the plate is definitely a case where "That's Nothing!" would be really helpful!  Half the people would want to see interference, and half would want obstruction.  You can explain why it was "nothing" after the play, but at least you sold your part of the call.

Mike

Las Vegas

[maven]

46 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

I think the Tangle/Untangle play close to the plate is definitely a case where "That's Nothing!" would be really helpful!  Half the people would want to see interference, and half would want obstruction.  You can explain why it was "nothing" after the play, but at least you sold your part of the call.

Mike

Las Vegas

Verbalizing is even more important there, as the 2 key people who need to know the ruling will generally have their backs to the PU. 

[Velho]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

I'm seeing a LL West Region instructor tonight. I'll ask him.

I asked him (and another West umpire with Regional/WS experience): Both didn't understand why I would ask, LOL. The mechanic is automatic with verbalization appropriate for the situation (as discussed above).

[grayhawk]

Sounds like only LL in Bristol are against it. One of the guys that was criticizing the use of it claimed to be a Pan Am Games umpire (maybe from another country - not sure) and said he had never even heard of the mechanic. I know it's used at the highest levels of NCAA and in MLB, so I was shocked that there was so much pushback.

[BigBlue4u]

On 5/13/2024 at 8:29 AM, grayhawk said:

"That's nothing" to show that he saw it and judged it to be no violation. Nothing controversial, or so I thought. I was surprised to see the number of umpires that disagreed. It got me wondering if this is a regional thing. I do know I've seen it mentioned in videos put out by the NCAA so I know the expectation when working NCAA games.

What say you, UE? Does anyone think this mechanic is a bad one?

I don't think it's a bad one, I think it's a GREAT ONE!!  As umpires, we are in the communication business.  Whenever a situation arises that leaves people wondering what happened, the "safe" signal is the answer.  By giving the "safe" signal, the umpire has indicated 1) He saw what happened and 2) He ruled on it.

By doing nothing, the first question people will ask is, did the umpire even see what happened. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

[johnnyg08]

One time, many years ago on an uncaught third strike, I came out with a big big, swing, safe signal and a big "no catch" I was so proud of myself. 

Everyone stopped because they only heard "catch" 

🤣

[urout17]

On 5/13/2024 at 11:29 AM, grayhawk said:

What say you, UE? Does anyone think this mechanic is a bad one?

I was taught this way and use it all the time. 

HS varsity vs two good teams. R1, ground ball to F4.  I'm in B and give the "safe" sign and "That's nothing". F4 fields the ball, throws the runner out at 1B for the third out.  Third base dugout HC calmly and casually comes out and asked if I had any interference there.  I asked him, "Didn't you see me "safe" the play before he threw"?  He said "Yes, but didn't know what that meant."  The thing is, he DOES know.  He's one of the rare coaches who does know rules and mechanics, he was just being a douche.  He then says "Oh, ok, when you make the safe sign then you have nothing on a play like that, ok, got it." and walks away.  

[Mudisfun]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:58 AM, Velho said:

 

HS or LL? Issue was the sign, the verbal, or both?

Bristol = LL East Region?

 

I'm seeing a LL West Region instructor tonight. I'll ask him.

Yes, it was as the WR several years back. No need to throw anyone specifically under the bus. I did what he wanted while there and then ignored it when I went home.

[Velho]

4 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

I did what he wanted while there and then ignored it when I went home.

After going to WR week last fall I've discussed this exact point with the WR school coordinator (when I was there, it's since changed) and two regular instructors - all 3 (ok, 2.5 of them 😁) enthusiastically endorsed this exact thing.

"Figure out what works for you" is a direct quote. 

[Richvee]

I use it all the time. 

The argument that it will cause players to stop doesn't hold water on BI. The ball has already been thrown, and the batter is either out, or has nowhere to go anyway. And I'm certainly not yelling it out loud enough for a runner or an infielder to hear me and stop. 

I don't give a verbal on the batted ball that comes close to a runner. A safe signal is enough to show people (DHC) "Yeah, it was close, but the ball didn't hit the runner" 

I try to stay away from "discussions" on FB. Trying to teach a rule to the truly ignorant is a losing proposition, though it still amazes me how wrong and confident people can be on baseball rules.  

[Jay R.]

On 5/14/2024 at 1:22 PM, BigBlue4u said:

By doing nothing, the first question people will ask is, did the umpire even see what happened. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

This.

As a coach of (admittedly low-level) youth teams in several sports, I mostly want to know whether the officials are paying enough attention to make a call.

I can understand not verbalizing things that are nothing, especially at lower age levels, but signaling seems to be a no-brainer for the benefit of coaches and spectators.

[Kevin_K]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

it still amazes me how wrong and confident people can be on baseball rules.  

Sadly, it isn't just baseball rules. As those far more intelligent than me have opined: The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius.

 

[mac266]

I was taught to do it in Colorado.  I work JuCo and high school.

 

I'm of the opinion that using the mechanic shows coaches that we saw what happened -- we were not asleep, and we know the rule -- and that we are no-calling it.  

[NavyChiefBlue]

I used this signal a few weeks ago in a HS playoff game.

I was U2.

R1, ball hit to F6, toss to F4 for out, I signaled  the out, then R1 slid into the bag, it was not a close play. After he slid through the bag, I signaled safe for no FPSR violation. R1 popped up, saw my safe signal and continued to run, F4 threw to F3 to complete the double play. I turned around and saw R1 crossing the plate after the out was made at first.

I immediately realized what I had done. I immediately got the crew together and explained what I did, PU knew exactly what I was saying, U1 didn't see it as he was focusing on the play at first. U3 was unsure, but he understood (2nd year umpire). I then went to the offensive teams HC and explained what I had. He had no issue with it. Defensive coach knew what I was doing.

I say this to say be careful when you use it. I have used it in the past with no issues, but I will absolutely be cautious moving forward.

 

[Velho]

Thanks for sharing @NavyChiefBlue. What're you thinking for next time? My initial reaction is to hammer the out and then go with a point and verbal "that's nothing" but am interested in your thought.

[NavyChiefBlue]

@Velho I was thinking along those lines, so there is no confusion.