Quote:
Originally posted by Tim C
"It also exposes your hands to a much higher degree."
Rather than taking cheap shots at you being a rat posting umpire information I will challenge this statement from your post.
Please explain to me were the "higher degree" comes from.
My version of Mythbusters would call "foul" on your generalization.
When I work the old heel-to-instep (consider we are talking about a RH hitter) I am in the slot. My right hand and arm are behind the catcher and my left arm is placed in front of my stomach just above my left knee.
When I work the GDS I am still in the slot and my right hand and arm are still behind the catcher. Since the catcher is still in front of me a ball would have to come off the bat and immediately go downward after passing the catcher (an impossibility) or it would have to go under the catcher and up and catch my arm after a bounce.
This means that my right arm is equally exposed in either stance.
Now in the Davis my left arm and hand, rather than horizontal, are nearly vertical. The same exact amount of arm is exposed and my hand slides effortlessly into the gap at the top of my leg guard.
Picture that my arms are not ridgid, my thumb is on the right side of my leg guard and my other four fingers are on the left side of the guard.
Since my leg guard is pointed squarely at the pitcher this means that my hands has little or no exposure to a pitch, deflected ball or foul BALL.
I don't understand your "cone" reference as the only "cone" I know of is the "Cone of Silence" from Get Smart.
I do not remember you posting that you worked the Davis Stance when you were posing as an umpire so I don't know how many games you have worked in the system.
All I can say, for about the thousandth time, I have worked the stance since late 1999 early 2000 through this last year and have been hit ONCE.
I'll stick with my research on this one.
Tee
|
No matter what stance you use, the arm/hand that is behind the catcher (assuming you are working a slot) is almost completely immune from being hit. It always seems the *other* arm/hand takes the shots.
Since an integral part of the GD stance is to lock yourself in with your hands as a support, there is no good place to put that exposed hand. In other stances, many umpires find places to put that hand, like behind the knee.
Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.
Let's face it, getting struck with a pitched ball off the bat is a relatively rare occurrence and it happens with such infrequency that it is difficult to attribute WHY one umpire might get hit more than another other than an inordinate amount of bad luck. So, if a GD stance umpire gets hit less than an umpire employing a different stance, that is hardly a conclusive database. It may be just one umpire is simply unlucky. Hell, why does one person get hit by lightning and another doesn't?
Having said this, I think the GD stance is probably superior to other stances. I particularly think a GD stance umpire gets a much better view of the low pitch that, in my opinion, is the mostly commonly missed pitch by umpires. I think many umpires tend to call a strike on a pitch that cuts the plate in two, but is on the low side, too often. And I think they miss that because they are TOO CLOSE to the pitch.
I realize that in the above photo the umpire is not employing the GD stance. That's not the point of the photo. It is simply to illustrate what I mean by "the cone". Perhaps if you had studied physics more instead of watching "Get Smart" you would have understood what I meant. :-)
I thought you retired from posting on internet forums?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:02 AM]