Maybe another thread should be started on the differences in organizations, but . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Well, this begs...oh, never mind.
What are the significant differences between NCAA mechanics and ASA/NFHS mechanics? . . . And I do have a CCA Manual, but it really only covers three-man, and I work a lot of two-man at the JuCo level.
|
There is your major mechanic difference. In NCAA, the "base system" is three umpire while the "base system" for ASA/NFHS is two umpires. Working a college game with two umpires is 3 umpires minus one, or basically when an umpire chases. There are some special considerations for two umpire games which were in the manual (now exclusively on Arbiter). They are:
-starting positions (including the "alternate starting position" with no runners on)
-working between pitches
-covering fly balls (which really isn't a difference)
ASA/NFHS three umpire system is the two umpire base "plus one."
Quote:
|
The one I've heard of the most is rimming vs. button-hooking when I start in A. But what are the other major differences? Are there really that many? From partners I've worked with, I can't recall anything significantly different.
|
You probably want to drop the use of *that* word. That was introduced as the verb form on "working the rim" meaning "staying outside." I refer to it as a non adherence to the inside-outside theory. Probably don't want to use google on how to do it.
Now, with that being said, it isn't only from "A" (actually, no softball organization labels starting positions that way, but that's another topic). But staying outside is part of a bigger difference with NCAA - you have responsibilities and calling positionS (emphasis on the plural), and how you get there is not of concern. The process involves more of reading the play/ball/partners, processing and then reacting (and the credit to that is the CAA manual). ASA/NFHS is more IF-Then type of action. That's why there is inside-outside theory, it is easier to IF-Then.
College ball is umpiring conceptually; you can survive as an IF-then umpire, but you won't thrive. Most ASA/NFHS umpires can thrive as IF-then, but the ones that do survive (especially at upper levels) take the conceptual approach.
Now, let me be clear that my statements are not critiques, just noticed differences. And there are fundamental factors for this: level of play, level of umpires. One isn't better than the other, there is just "differences."