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.
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] [/QUOTE]
David --
I think your physics is completely backwards. The forward umpire occupies, say, 100% of the cone -- he's guaranteed to get hit. An umpire standing at, say, the screen, might occupy 10% of the cone -- he's unlikely to get hit. [/B][/QUOTE]
The illustration was only to explain to Tee what I even meant by "the cone", nothing more.
I'll agree that the further back you stand you subtend less of "the cone". That part is obvious especially if you consider an umpire standing 50-feet behind the catcher. Clearly, he would have an extremely remote chance of getting hit.
The problem is that with the GD stance, the umpire is only slightly further back than the more conventional stances yet postures himself MUCH more erect. It's that erect stance, in my opinion, that catches more of "the cone." I probably didn't word it very well in my original post.
The picture above has the two umpires (one just being a clone of the other) using identical stances. I'll agree that two umpires, using identical stances, the one furthest from the ball has a lower probability of being hit *PROVIDED* all other things are equal as far as the frontal area of exposure remaining constant which is *NOT* the case for the GD stance. There's a reason everybody says it's easier on the back - it's because you're not squatting as much.
Like I said, I don't think it's a big issue. I just think it's true from a physics standpoint. I wouldn't discourage anybody from using the GD stance on this basis.
I was just bored and wanted to play Bill Nye the Science Guy. :-)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN