[AtlUmpSteve]

I think there is some misunderstanding regarding this between innings mechanic.

The original mechanic in all major softball mechanics books (ASA defined, and NCAA and NFHS adopted) had the plate umpire on the foul line, alternating to the side of the team coming off the field from defense. The general wisdom was that this placed the umpire on the side of the team that was less likely to be unhappy, as they had just retired the other side; the side benefit was that placed the plate umpire closer to the dugout now coming onto offense, and that meant the offensive coach could more easily make substitutions. It also placed the plate umpire with his back to the offensive dugout.

In more recent years, that philosophy changed. Teams utilized between innings activities that were considered unsafe, unfair, or otherwise inappropriate; multiple players outside swinging bats, getting closer to the plate to better see the warmup pitches and "time" the pitch, various routines that were to be discouraged and not allowed, and the NFHS discouraged team huddles. The old mechanic had all this happening behind the back of the plate umpire, and the committees wanted this monitored. So, they swapped the side, to the plate umpire facing the dugout of the team coming off the field.

This change punched holes in the previous conventional wisdom. There was no major upsurge in confrontations after an inning; if a coach or player planned to comment, they did so irrespective of the position of the umpire. This placed the plate umpire closer to the offensive coach for substitution purposes; but further away from the (now) defensive coach needing to report re-entry. It still had the plate umpire with his back to one dugout; the defensive dugout now.

The NCAA SUIP reacted first. They considered a location where the plate umpire could really observe both dugouts, and realized that we backed up to get a broader view. They adopted a mechanic placing the plate umpire in the vicinity of home plate; approximately 10-12' behind home plate into foul territory, and off to the side to avoid being in line with wild warm-up pitches. That was defined as base-line extended to get the proper adjustment between "in the vicinity" and "off-line", and alternates to face the side coming in to play offense.

This position was taught, and has, in my opinion, several advantages over either prior position. We have full view of the offensive team, to monitor any activity; we also have a reasonable view of the defensive dugout, without obviously turning or peering over our shoulder. On deck (warming up) batters stay a respectful distance from us, placing them a safe distance from the plate, so the opposing team doesn't complain about their location; and we are in pefect position to stop them from crossing to the other side until called to bat. We are reasonably equally close to both teams' coaches for substitution purposes, and no one really comes up from behind us. We are closer to our initial function of sweeping the plate to start the inning, and less likely to get caught up in a conversation with anyone that might delay the start of the inning.

Using this mechanic, I also realized that both teams always have a coach that must pass us anyway; not matter which side we stand on, a base coach passes us leaving, a base coach passes us going out, and neither dugout is extremely distant. We are never too far or creating a hardship on either team to make substitutions, or access the umpire for any other purpose. It allows us to have a discrete conversation if appropriate, where we can occasionally use preventative officiating without being obvious. And, in my experience, the teams seem to accept the occasional meeting on the foul line, whether we NEED to talk, or just choose to meet a few times a game. I find doing that (meeting just a few times a game) as a routine makes that less of a issue when it is necessary.

I wasn't able to monitor the ASA Umpire Committee discussion at the National Council when that mechanic change was adopted; as Mike knows, I always have a mandatory (sign in, or forfeit housing reimbursement) meeting for another committee scheduled at the same time. So, I certainly won't dispute his version of the discussion there. At the same time, I am very aware that the ASA NUS won't often accept as wisdom "that's what we do in 'XXX', and it is better"; there is very often the need to dance around that, and take a different approach, rather than discuss the obvious. But, ASA adopted it several years after NCAA; and I prefer it, for the reasons stated. No one place is perfect; it is easy to find something negative about anything. All mechanics are a trade-off for something that may go wrong, but should be determined for what has the most positives and the least negatives the majority of the time, irrespective of how we always did it before.

Finally, I have no direct knowledge why NFHS adopted that change this year. I suspect it was a combination of 1) most people that have used this consider it a superior mechanic, and 2) there is no good reason to have a different mechanic on this for NFHS than the NCAA and ASA mechanic, which is now broadly adopted.