[AtlUmpSteve]

Tracking with your nose does require some head turn in the last few feet of an outside pitch, assuming you are up tight to the catcher. I teach it by reminding (at least the older generation) of Pete Rose watching a pitch all the way into the catcher's mitt. Similarly, we attempt to track all the way into the mitt; even though the strike zone may have been passed earlier in the pitch, the track to the mitt allows better timing on your call, less distraction by the swing, and a more definite focus on a drop/short hop by the catcher.

By locking the eyes and making a minor head movement, you more accurately reflect the same focus mechanism of a video camera. Consider the autofocus on a video camera lens, attempting to follow the ball from pitcher's hand to the glove, then, after hit, following the ball as it moves around the field. Any camera operator would certainly note that the camera stays more focused, with less work, when the operator attempts to keep the ball in the middle of the frame, and moves with the ball. If the camera stays locked in place, the autofocus churns to keep up, and the focus is rarely as sharp. If the camera overcompensates, and moves too quickly, or beyond the location of the ball, the focus mechanism churns to work, and is not as sharp.

So it is with our eyes. The older (and still baseball technique) of locking the head and moving only the eyes recognizes the problem of moving too quickly, or overadjusting; while it resolves half the possible issues, the philosophy comes from a time before we could use the example of a camera with autofocus. And, it is somewhat based on a much deeper baseball catcher (and thus umpire) position relative to the strike zone at home plate, whereas the typical fastpich catcher often catches the ball just behind the zone. By pointing your nose on the ball, and attempting to keep the ball there as it moves, you minimize your movements, maximize your focus, and best utilize your depth perception.

That is the concept I learned from the first (to my knowledge) ASA plate guru, Tony Walsh, followed by Billy Peterson and then Jim Craig; and that is what the ASA NUS has preached since. If there is a movement afoot to change that concept, I would hate to understand what basis they might have to justify the physical issues. As we have discussed in other threads, there are certain staff members (newer ones, mostly) who are teaching whatever mechanic they personally prefer, and asserting that is THE ASA position.