[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 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.

Please note that my reference was to moving the BU off the line as more likely than not, if a player coming off the field had an issue, it would be with the BU. I believe this was presented at the UIC clinic in 2003, but could be wrong. I believe that was the same clinic when moving the BU to the B for all situations in a 2-umpire SP game.

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.

But whose fault was it that these "inappropriate" activities were allowed? In my area, from Tom Mason to present, the PU was instructed go half-way up the line, not near the plate as the old graphic indicated. This pretty much keeps the the umpire out of the way of everyone and everything. They were located where a wild throw or warm-up pitch could not hit them and be accidental; where the coach could approach and make changes without fear of being hit by an inattentive batter and at the same time the PU could share info with a BU that may be necessary.

This change punched holes in the previous conventional wisdom. There was no major upsurge in confrontations after an inning;

But there wasn't prior to the change, either.

if a coach or player planned to comment, they did so irrespective of the position of the umpire.

No argument, but is irrelevant to positioning.

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.

No, it doesn't.

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.

But doesn't the NCAA have two better candidates available to observe both dugouts between innings called base umpires?

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.

As we in SP can tell you, 10-12 feet isn't that far and it definitely places the umpire in a precarious position if there is an approaching batter paying more attention to the warm-up than whom is in the vicinity.

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.

I don't believe that is true on a BLE at 10-12 feet especially if the backstop is the prescribed 25-30 feet from home plate.

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.

A lot of supposition (or hooey, as my grandmother would say) that is no more accurate at this than any other position on the field.

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.

As noted at the top, I was referring to moving the BU a few years back and my comment is what I was specifically told by a member of the NUS.

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.

I'm not so sure about the present NUS, but that may just be me. I have little doubt, this is a monkey-see, monkey-do situation. To me, this is nothing more than someone thinking they have a better idea and getting the right ears at the right time. I don't think there is a justification Steve offered above that I could not equally provide from the old positioning.

However, the NCAA bought into this and have instructed those in associations contracted to work NCAA game to use this method. That's fine and I have no problem with that. Supposedly, all NCAA umpires are properly trained and should be at the top of their game.

Now, you have ASA and NFHS adopting the mechanic, but play on fields and with personnel not of the same size and caliber. And when I say "personnel", I am referring to umpires, players and coaches. There are fields (ASA & HS) that don't have 8' between the plate and backstop, let alone 10-12. Hell, there are some fields where the catcher could be in the first row of the stand and still be in the catcher's box. Trust me, anyone standing back there is in jeopardy of being injured. You also have partners that need to be "coached" during games (ASA & HS & some college games).

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.

Most people? How many umpires have you polled? You do remember Joey Rich's comment at the end of the convention, don't you?

The mechanic is what it is. IMO, it is not superior to anything, it is just a mechanic that may work better in some situations than others. With NCAA/NPF/ISF, I can see it working well at those levels.

It is not a standard, cookie cutter-like mechanic that can just be laid out over a field and accommodate all umpires and situations. Also, IMO and preferences aside, it does not provide a "superior" position for any one function that isn't equally as well served by the previous prescribed position. And, remember, this isn't just FP.

In my 43 years of umpiring, I have never had an issue or complaint spending my one-minute breaks on the foul line. And yes, that is where I stood when I worked baseball.

So what it comes down to for me, something wasn't broken, but someone thought it needed fixin' anyway. IOW, it is just like our "society". Things were going along fine, some unscrupulous people started doing something outside of the dugout that Chicken Little thought was an issue, but instead of stopping it and demanding the team and coaches do their job and control their players, CL said, "hey, we can saddle the umpires with this unpopular job of babysitting our little brats, but we need to provide something that makes it feel necessary to change and they will end up doing our dirty work and not even realizing it".

All joking aside, we do what we are instructed to do. That doesn't mean we have to like it, but we do it anyway. I am not suggesting any of us ignore what we are instructed to do, just be careful when it is obviously not a safe thing to do.