Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbyron
If you prefer sore knees or the risk of neck injuries over the "discomfort" of the GDS, then what grounds for complaint have you concerning the former?
One would think that any new stance would take an experienced umpire out of his comfort zone. The issue is whether the advantages of the stance make it worth the trouble reshaping one's comfort zone.
As you probably know but others might not, the risk of neck injuries is significant and the basis of the prohibition of "scissors" among MiLB umpires. Insurers won't cover those who use it. I suspect that this might one day extend to FED, ABUA, and other groups carrying injury insurance for umpires.
MLB umpires may still use it without losing their insurance; I would infer that MLB pays extra premiums to cover the extra risk. Ah, the show!
|
The bottom line is: I tried the GD stance for several, several games. I felt that I was not as good a ball & strikes umpire for whatever reason. (I admit it might totally be psychological). Hey, I said I'm stubborn.
I, personally, feel the most comfortable in the scissors. I'm never tired after a nine-inning game (I always feel as if I can go a few more innings), and I consistently have solid game after solid game with balls and strikes (based on self-evaluations). Until and unless my neck becomes sore and/or the stance is banned in a manner like you suggested, I'm sticking with it. I will also drop it if the stance, though not banned, goes the way of the outside protector. That is, anyone who uses it is considered to look "unprofessional". I allow for the possibility that the stance could be nearly entirely filtered out of the profession, just like the "true" box stance.