Clipping:Proposals for umpire signals
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, April 14, 1889 |
|---|---|
| Text | [a letter to the editor from John J. Rooney, Captain R. F. Downing & Co. B.B. Club.] … Every one who attends professional games, when the crowds are large and noisy, and the umpire is not blessed with a strong voice, understands this difficulty. Frequently three-fourths of the spectators in distant parts of the field, and even the more fortunate holders and grand-stand tickets, do not know until the close of the inning, or at least after a provoking delay, whether a man is “safe” or “out,” or whether a strike or a ball has been called on the batter. … …I would respectfully suggest a simple expedient—a code of bell signals. Place a man or boy in charge of a pleasantly sounding gong within plain hearing of the umpire's decision. It is evident, first, that the code should be extremely simple; a second, that all professional and crack amateur teams should adopt the same code; otherwise the plan would be worse than useless. May I again presume to make a few suggestions that have privately met the approval of base ball experts and lovers of the game? First—For all “strikes, “actual or called, one bell. No bell after a pitched ball necessarily means a “ball,” unless otherwise announced. Second--”Safe” in running bases, one ball: “out,” two bells. No more is needed. The “one” bell for a strike and the “one” bell for “safe” need not conflict, as the two points of play covered cannot be made at the same time. A quick bell would meet any possible objection. These signals I offer merely as a suggestion, but I feel certain that many ball players and devotees of the national sport will support me in the claim that in view of the great and fast increasing crowds attending ball games, and the extent of many of the grounds, there is an urgent necessity for a change that will bring every one, even in the remotest back seat, within immediate and distinct reach of the umpire's decision. Let the managers try it, and the base ball public will gratefully respond. New York Sun April 14, 1889 [from a letter to the editor from James Sullivan of New Haven, Conn.] I think a have a little code of base ball signals superior to those advanced by Mr. Rooney in The Sun of yesterday. The use of a gong is beset with difficulties for it would have to be a loud-sounding gong to reach the ears of 10,000 excited spectators, many of whom have imperfect hearing, or the boy in charge may misunderstand the umpire or make a mistake in his excitement. Why not have the umpire himself instantly telegraph his decisions to the anxious spectators? Here is my little code: For every strike the umpire shall raise one hand straight over his head; for a ball he shall make no significant motion. Whenever a man is out he shall raise both hands over his head; and if a man is safe, whether at the bat or running bases, he need make no significant motion. What could be more simple? A deaf mute could almost umpire under these rules, and players and spectators would understand him. New York Sun April 16, 1889 [from an anonymous “twenty years' reader of the Sun] As suggestions seem to be in order, permit the undersigned to offer the following signals calculated to benefit the patrons of the national game: First, regulation of balls and strikes—Let each umpire provide himself with a red handkerchief, and wave same when calling a strike on the batter. Second, outs—Wave a rag when man is out between the bases. New York Sun April 17, 1889 [from the reply from John Rooney] ...First of all, the umpire has enough to do in watching a game. He would object or fail to make himself a “jack-in-the-box.” His attention must be centred on the play, and any distraction or unnecessary increase of duties weakens and burdens him. The umpire would be compelled to shout, throw up his hands, and work the hand register at the same time. Secondly, the arm signals are not sufficient emphatic to reach all spectators. The arm could be elevated only for an instant, and would not compel an knowledge of the decision, such as a sharp bell would. The spectators don't want to watch the umpire all the time. A bell would reach them whether they watched or not. Moreover, the signal proposed is not sufficiently distinctive,and would consequently soon fall into disuse. It is not strong enough. A bell demands attention, speaks unmistakably, and at once stamps the decision with authority. Admirers of the game are admitting the necessity for some code of signals, although they may differ on the form. Let the managers give the scheme a trial. New York Sun April 18, 1889 |
| Source | New York Sun |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />