[AtlUmpSteve]

My opinion is that establishing and teaching a standard is absolutely the ideal when dealing with the masses. That is the ASA mantra, and has been effective for many years. To some degree, they ARE the "dummy down" mechanics.

But, I also think that when the mantra becomes dogma, that is short-sighted. We are taught there is just one way; and even when it is acknowledged that it isn't the best way in a specific situation, that is the only approved way. Keep it simple, stupid. So, evaluation more often is objective, based on strict criteria; but the results can suffer.

Instead of getting in the best position to get it right. Years ago, a highly respected NUS member was effectively shunned for teaching "advanced mechanics for advanced umpires". He wasn't teaching the masses; he taught (suggested) differing mechanics to those assigned to ASA major national tournaments, or wanting to learn at the Advanced Camps.

In principle, I think the NCAA philosophy is better. It suggests alternate stances that can be used so that individuals can use what works best for them, states that there aren't 'x' spots to stand so that thinking umpires can adjust to game situations, and designates the results and goals as being more important than the means. Unfortunately, (in MY experience), the reality is that isn't the criteria used by many of the conference coordinators, their evaluators, or even all of the prior SUIP; evaluation results all too often are/were based on the 'x' spots, and the "thinking" used by the "thinking umpires" often dismissed if the evaluator wanted it done differently. In my opinion, it is even harder to be evaluated when the criteria is intended to be subjective; even more so when they get to interject their personal preferences that have nothing to do with calling the game (like if you chew gum versus seeds, or where you put your sunglasses, or what facial hair is acceptable, or if you choose to drink beer on YOUR time).

The other overriding concern I have is the efforts to standardize mechanics when the games are different. It is crystal clear that slowpitch has different rules than fastpitch; it is, frankly, a different game. When the rules are different, and the game is different, there should be no problem with different mechanics. SP can start in B to save steps; if you need to focus on the pitcher's footwork relative to the pitching plate, then A is a better starting position. When the height of a pitch isn't a factor, then setting prior to release is a plus; when gauging the height of a ball thrown with arc is required, it may be (certainly was assumed to be for a great many years) better to stay upright, make that decision, then let the ball take you down through the zone (isn't that the same as "tracking"??).

As to the other thread, I would NEVER agree that the BU in slowpitch should always stay outside; just as I really don't agree that the BU should always buttonhook. In my personal opinion (albeit NOT what I teach), both should be acceptable, with a thinking umpire utilizing what works best (for THAT umpire and crew) in certain game situations.

But, that's just me. Not speaking the party line (any party line, obviously); just my thoughts.