[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 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.

And yet, some umpires still cannot get the point of why they need to be somewhere. Forget HOW, they don't even bother with getting there.

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.

Absolutely agree. I review every umpire evaluation from a national to make sure someone doesn't get screwed because some asst. UIC is more anal than I am . It is unbelievable, but it happens more than it should.

Instead of getting in the best position to get it right.

I disagree with this and usually see it as a reason offered to refute ASA's mechanics. I have never been told or instructed to stand a particular place to make a call that was contrary to getting the best available view.

I have been told where to start and the path to take to get to the general area using ASA's mechanics, but the NCAA does the same thing. However, if you need to move one way or the other to make the call, you do it and ASA mechanics will not tell you otherwise.

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.

I was one of those umpires. The only problem was making these changes less than four hours before the first game. The individuals didn't have much of a problem, but as a crew it didn't work. We reverted to straight ASA mechanics and BP didn't have a problem with that. By the end of the tournament, some of us worked well with it in certain situations, but still stayed with an ASA base.

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).

Yet those perceptions apply and affect ratings in both ASA and NCAA.

As was borne out in the major noted above, the advantage to standard mechanics is that any number of umpires can walk on any field and without so much as a few words can work a game successfully. I can, and have, stepped on the field with two strangers and all work a great game.

I'll say it again, both ASA and NCAA and probably every other association tell the umpire where to start, where to finish and how to get there in a preferred manner. However, they all support whatever it takes to get the call correct. Some have different ideas than others on how to get to that point, but the objective is the same.

Part of the problem using the same format for both. Like it or not, it IS a fact of life that ASA must accommodate a much wider spectrum of umpires and BPs thought of the advanced training of advanced umpires is, and will continue, to be nearly impossible as long as the code and costs interfere with umpire assignments at the national level.

In the NCAA, the umpire must earn their way and the NCAA makes somewhat of an effort to get the best umpires on the field in a closed shop. As long as the majority of umpires at ASA nationals are local umpires, some not qualified, ASA will be limited to the KISS method of instruction and direction.