Full count sign

Closed fists were never the proper sign for full count. As umpires are exposed to proper mechanics through expanded training opportunities that and other "weekend" mechanios are disappearing.

Properly trained umpires don't do closed fists for a 3/2 count nor do they say full count. They say three balls, two strikes, this how you can tell if t is 3/2 or 2/2.

Maybe it isn't what they are supposed to do, but I wish they WOULD put up closed fists. It is a heck of a lot easier to see.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Maybe it isn't what they are supposed to do, but I wish they WOULD put up closed fists. It is a heck of a lot easier to see.

Perhaps. But then we'd more people wondering shy the count is 0-0 after several pitches. I've never had any problems with people telling the difference between two fingers and three fingers or knowing that balls are counted on the left hand and strikes on the right, or hearing me say, "Three balls, two strikes."

Well, there are lots of places in the stands, depending on the angle and how far away you are sitting, where it is very hard (if not impossible) to see the difference between two and three fingers on the hand.

I can't recall an umpire ever giving an 0-0 count sign.

Rob

I am with you---there are times when from the coaching boxes you cnnot see the fingers because of umpire positioning but you can clearly see the clenched fists

what the heck is an 0-0 count anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Well, there are lots of places in the stands, depending on the angle and how far away you are sitting, where it is very hard (if not impossible) to see the difference between two and three fingers on the hand.

I can't recall an umpire ever giving an 0-0 count sign.

My point exactly. A closed fist means "nothing" or "0". Two closed fists confuse more people than the number who think it means 3-2.

Again, a proper signal accompanied by "Three balls and two strikes, has never seemed to confuse anyone in my games.

An umpire using two closed fists, or yelling "full count" is seen as a rookie or "Charlie" by coaches and his fellow umpires in these parts.

quote:

Again, a proper signal accompanied by "Three balls and two strikes, has never seemed to confuse anyone in my games.

It's not about being confused, it is about being able to see what the count is. Most umpires don't say the count loud enough for people in the stands to hear.
And lots of people can't distinguish the number of fingers being held up.

I am sure what you say about the "proper" signal is true. I'm just suggesting an improvement that would make it easier for the people in the seats.

Nobody is going to be confusing a clenched fist full count sign for an 0-0 count.

Don't the "proper" mechanics ever change and evolve?

Coach,

Those who set the standards in mechanics and those who use them, to my knowledge, haven't expressed a concern over this issue.

But feel free to propose a change in umpire mechanics to NFHS for high school, or Professional Umpire Baseball Corp. (PBUC) for OBR based games.

I keep a score book in my lap. I need bifocals to see it, but I usually know the count... Usually...

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

Again, a proper signal accompanied by "Three balls and two strikes, has never seemed to confuse anyone in my games.

It's not about being confused, it is about being able to see what the count is. Most umpires don't say the count loud enough for people in the stands to hear.
And lots of people can't distinguish the number of fingers being held up.

I am sure what you say about the "proper" signal is true. I'm just suggesting an improvement that would make it easier for the people in the seats.

Nobody is going to be confusing a clenched fist full count sign for an 0-0 count.

Don't the "proper" mechanics ever change and evolve?

yes proper mechanics do change/evolve......and the current proper way to show a full count is with your fingers showing "3 balls and 2 strikes".....its not balled up fists, and its not calling out "full count" or "full Boat" or "thirty two" ....

As to be loud enough for fans to hear, thats not our concern... I am not there to be the Public Address announcer....now I usually dont have any issues as I have by nature an umpiring voice that carries.....but I am only concerned that the batter,catcher and pitcher see or hear my count.....the rest of the participants are on their own or can ask me.....the fans can watch the scoreboard....

quote:

the fans can watch the scoreboard

Sure, but speaking from experience, quite a few umpires don't display the count in way that the scoreboard operator or scorekeeper can see. Nor can they be heard from behind. IMO, at high school games, the biggest cause of erroneous or late scoreboard postings is too much socializing by the operator. But a close second is poor communication by the person who is responsible for the count--the umpire. From my point of view, appropriate communication to the scoreboard, and by proxy to the crowd, is one aspect of good game management.

I certainly don't expect to hear "thirty-two" from a qualified umpire, but I will comment that it is much easier to hear than "three 'n two", especially from umpires who's strike three call sounds like "high hee". Most people will ennunciate the "ty" sound in "thirty", but don't ennunciate the "d" in "and".

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

I certainly don't expect to hear "thirty-two" from a qualified umpire, but I will comment that it is much easier to hear than "three 'n two", especially from umpires who's strike three call sounds like "high hee". Most people will ennunciate the "ty" sound in "thirty", but don't ennunciate the "d" in "and".

Which is all the more reason that umpires should follow the uniform standard taught at proschools and clinics: Verbalize both the number and the call...."Three Balls, Two Strikes"....when giving the count. We most often encounter problems when we use home brewed mechanics like "22", "full boat" and closed fists signals.

While it may not be the correct mechanic today, it certainly was widely used in the old days (e.g. when Rob and I were boys). I'm with Rob - I think it would be an improvement on the mechanics to go back to two closed fists for full count. Either that or make sure when giving the count that the ump rotates somewhat so as to show three vs two fingers.

quote:

Originally posted by 08Dad:
While it may not be the correct mechanic today, it certainly was widely used in the old days (e.g. when Rob and I were boys). I'm with Rob - I think it would be an improvement on the mechanics to go back to two closed fists for full count. Either that or make sure when giving the count that the ump rotates somewhat so as to show three vs two fingers.

First, as PIAA noted, umpires communicate the count to the batter, pitcher and catcher. He is not the PA announcer. If a coach misses the count, he simply asks and we give it to him.

Second, a lot of umpire used home made mechanics when I was a boy, too. A lot of players did some really strange thing back then, too. Thank God we've both learned better.

if you desire to see the "fist bump" or hear "thirty two" just head to your local slowpitch softball game

At the risk of being a smartaleck, why is a three/two count any different or harder to understand than any other count. I always say three balls/two strikes because it was too hard to understand without.
At no time was full count or closed fists taught as a mechanic. If you would like to see it, go to any LL field and you will see it in a second.

quote:

At no time was full count or closed fists taught as a mechanic. If you would like to see it, go to any LL field and you will see it in a second.

Hey I get it. You guys all have a professional code in which certain things are signs of inexperience and/or incompetence. Bush league, so to speak. And closed fists for full count happens to be one of them. Fine.

I am just suggesting that it is a better way to do it, even if it is considered bush league by the masters of the diamond.

It would increase the enjoyment of the fans in the stands. We aren't there to admire the professionalism of the umpire staff. We sometimes just want to know what the freaking count is, and the attitude of "I'm not here to be the PA system" seems prevalent.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

It would increase the enjoyment of the fans in the stands. We aren't there to admire the professionalism of the umpire staff. We sometimes just want to know what the freaking count is, and the attitude of "I'm not here to be the PA system" seems prevalent.

The umpires are there to officiate the game, nothing else. The spectators are not part of the game (with the sole exception of spectator interference). The count is given to participants in the game.

quote:

The umpires are there to officiate the game, nothing else. The spectators are not part of the game

I understand this, but still, it seems to me, that if a simple change could be made that makes the viewing experience better for the people in the stands, why so much resistance?

So far I have heard exactly zero good reasons why closed fists are not a good idea. I could summarize the reasons given as "because we don't do it that way."

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

The umpires are there to officiate the game, nothing else. The spectators are not part of the game

I understand this, but still, it seems to me, that if a simple change could be made that makes the viewing experience better for the people in the stands, why so much resistance?

So far I have heard exactly zero good reasons why closed fists are not a good idea. I could summarize the reasons given as "because we don't do it that way."

Many professions have standard way of doing things. Those standards are decided upon because they have been adjudged by those in the profession to meet the desired objective in the best, most precise manner. Clearly, to most people, holding up three fingers on one hand and two on the other represents 3 and 2 more definitively than banging two fists together.

Also there is a reluctance to change to the whim of spectators. Where does it stop? You want this, someone else wants that. Why not yell "Thirty Two!" Why just say "Safe?" Why not say, "No, he beat the tag, he's safe?" It goes on and on.

And finally, the ability to meet and apply those standards is one of the criteria by which umpires are evaluated. Evaluating apples to apples is easier than apples to oranges.

quote:

Clearly, to most people, holding up three fingers on one hand and two on the other represents 3 and 2 more definitively than banging two fists together.

This isn't clear at all. The fact is, most people in the stands cannot tell how many fingers are being held up. They are either too far away or at a bad angle to see it. (Nobody said anything about "banging fists together, BTW.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

Clearly, to most people, holding up three fingers on one hand and two on the other represents 3 and 2 more definitively than banging two fists together.

This isn't clear at all. The fact is, most people in the stands cannot tell how many fingers are being held up. They are either too far away or at a bad angle to see it.

Despite your use of the word "fact", this is not a fact. It is your opinion.

When three finger are held up, it means only one thing...the number three. When a closed fist is held up, it means jut one thing. Zero.

You want it to represent several things. Zero, two and three. That makes no sense.

The problem here is you insist that your opinion should count for more than that of those who set the standards. Except to you, It doesn't.

Somewhere along the line, we all have to accept that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, not all opinions have equal value.

My doctor's opinion of my sprained wrist is far more valuable than that of his receptionist or the 1200 fans who saw me sprain it.

quote:

The problem here is you insist that your opinion should count for more than that of those who set the standards.

Where did I insist this?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

The problem here is you insist that your opinion should count for more than that of those who set the standards.

Where did I insist this?

By your repetitive insistance that your opinion of how to indicate a three balls and two strikes is better than that of those who decide on mechanics.

"Posted October 18, 2009 08:10 PM
Maybe it isn't what they are supposed to do, but I wish they WOULD put up closed fists. It is a heck of a lot easier to see."

"Posted October 19, 2009 12:07 AM
I'm just suggesting an improvement that would make it easier for the people in the seats."


"Posted October 24, 2009 02:16 PM
I am just suggesting that it is a better way to do it, even if it is considered bush league by the masters of the diamond.

It would increase the enjoyment of the fans in the stands."


"Posted October 25, 2009 02:36 PM Hide
I understand this, but still, it seems to me, that if a simple change could be made that makes the viewing experience better for the people in the stands,"

Hmmm. I guess you must be reading words other than the ones you paste below. I can't seem to find anything at all that would suggest that I think my "opinion should count for more than that of those who set the standards."

"I wish...."
"I am suggesting..."
"I am just suggesting..."
"Seems to me...."

Sounds kind of like I am repeating my central point to multiple posters who didn't address it. Nor have you.

Funny thing I have learned about some umpires - in real life they think they are still on the diamond, and can eject people who argue with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Hmmm. I guess you must be reading words other than the ones you paste below. I can't seem to find anything at all that would suggest that I think my "opinion should count for more than that of those who set the standards."

"I wish...."
"I am suggesting..."
"I am just suggesting..."
"Seems to me...."

Sounds kind of like I am repeating my central point to multiple posters who didn't address it. Nor have you.

Funny thing I have learned about some umpires - in real life they think they are still on the diamond, and can eject people who argue with them.

Okay...my last.

Despite having it pointed out that those who are charge of such things disagree with what you think would be better, you continue to wish, suggest, etc, etc.

Would you continue doing that if you didn't think your opinion is better? I give you more credit than that. If I am wrong. I'm sorry.

I don't see anyone here trying to eject anyone. We have been more than willing to have this discussion. We have tried to explain the facts and you have continued to come back with opinion. No one suggested you leave.

Now, since you will say you saw no facts...

The facts are that those in charge of mechanics have decided that the two fists is not as good a mechanic. The fact is, I posted reasons for that.

I never meant for this to become a hostile thread. I merely tried to explain why what you seem to think is a better mechanic is not viewed as such by those who matter.

I'm done. I'm not ejecting anyone. I am ending my participation in a discussion that is going nowhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Sounds kind of like I am repeating my central point to multiple posters who didn't address it. Nor have you.

Funny thing I have learned about some umpires - in real life they think they are still on the diamond, and can eject people who argue with them.

Just to add in my last passing comments, you have indeed repeated your central point to multiple posters....and you received 5 consistent answers on why that mechanic is not recommended or approved by the accredited authorities that govern Umpires..

Since I happen to know much of our Umpire posters reputations and resumes....at the NFHS and higher levels, I can tell you that what they say to you is the right in line with the approved mechanics for HS and College and Pro umpires.

It is imperative that we have an accepted set of mechanics so that in the course of doing games we can all be on the same page. An accepted set of mechanics insures we all know what signals we are giving and the resulting implications of those signals.

You may or may not know that the count is only a small part of the accepted signals that umpires use to communicate with the participants and with each other... they have to be standardized....about the only mechanic that you are allowed to personalize a bit is the strike 3 mechanic...but even that can come under an negative evaluators eye if deemed to be too flamboyant....

Like a pre-flight checklist for a pilot, we are directed to have a "pregame" conference with our partners to go over signals, coverages and procedures...the key to that and then also the game going smoothly is accepted standards.

You have made some comments in this thread regarding umpires and that this would make the game better for the fans.... In no way is an umpire directed to do anything for the fans....quite the contrary, we are directed to disregard the fans in all areas...we are not to engage them, be influenced by them or in any way consider the fan in the operation of a baseball game. Our authority is inside the fences...not outside....'

Most of the umpire bashing we hear in these threads are about umpires who overstep the boundaries that the rules and the mechanics set out for us......Showboaters, loudmouths, unprofessional, confrontational umpires who would not be in that position if they just followed the accepted standards and procedures....

I take exception to your last comment regarding ejecting people who argue with them.....you have been treated with courtesy and at no time was this thread closed, locked or altered. Your opinion was dutifully considered by 5 reputable umpires and our opinion was stated...

Just my .02

As a coach my disagreements with umpires rarely included how they indicated the count was full

I readily admit I have used the closed fist and said full count when I was in my early portion of my carreer. Once I moved to the HS level and started to actually attend clinics and receiving evals, I learned not to do things like the closed fists and say full count. If you do that at a pro clinic, they will ask what the count is full of. There are times that you have to show a 0/0 count.
I repeat my question of, why is a three/two count different than any other count? Anywhere else in the count you show and announce the count. Why all of a sudden is it different?
I don't mean anything personal, nor do I take anything wrong, I just am confused by the confusion.

quote:

I take exception to your last comment regarding ejecting people who argue with them.....you have been treated with courtesy and at no time was this thread closed, locked or altered. Your opinion was dutifully considered by 5 reputable umpires and our opinion was stated...

I was referring to Jimmy's remark that I insist my opinion counts more than those who set the standards, as if simply reiterating my point in a very mild way was somehow being overbearing or argumentative.

MST: to your question: it is easy to visually distinguish between one finger and two fingers. It is not easy at all to tell if two or three fingers are held up on the left hand.

I looked back through this thread to see what reasons were given why the 3-2 count shouldn't be closed fists. There were two different reasons given:

1) some version of "because it isn't the right way to do it."

2) a question of whether it would be more confusing since a closed fist would mean different numbers depending on whether it was 0-0 or 3-2.

Of these, #1 is of course a non answer. #2 is at least a reason, but it is hard to imagine any real confusion happening.

I never thought this was a big deal or anything, so I apologize if I made a mountain out of a molehill here. But I just kept hearing the same non answer.

Rob,

We don't establish approved umpire mechanics, we follow them, whether or not we agree with them. If CCA or PBUC decides to change the full count mechanic to closed fists, then that's what we'll do. I suggest you take up your idea with them. Before doing so, I would recommend that you be prepared to explain why it is a good idea to use the same signal for a 0-0 count and a 3-2 count.

What would I indicate with my fists if the count was 3 balls and no strikes?

Rob

You have a PM

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Before doing so, I would recommend that you be prepared to explain why it is a good idea to use the same signal for a 0-0 count and a 3-2 count.

Better yet, explain why it is only with a full count that one cannot determine whether the umpire is indicating with two fingers or three.

Or is a 3-1 count, 2-2 count, 3-0 count, 2-0 count, 3-1 count equally difficult to determine whether the umpire is indicating with two fingers or three fingers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9lXcPoiMGE

All things considered, this guy is better than Morgan, Buck, Miller, McCarver, etc.

0-0 count?

WOW--now you guys are really getting technical

quote:

Or is a 3-1 count, 2-2 count, 3-0 count, 2-0 count, 3-1 count equally difficult to determine whether the umpire is indicating with two fingers or three fingers?

FINALLY! A logical counterargument!

I knew you had it in you, Jimmy! Why did it take ten days and a dozen posts?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
0-0 count?

WOW--now you guys are really getting technical

You have a R1 and the pitcher throws over a bunch of times,maybe even a throwaway. After several throws, you need to remind everyone there is no count. It's not all that unusual.