Thread: Tenn v. Bama
View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 28, 2013, 10:33am
Andy Andy is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
What is often lost in the entire "chase" theory in softball is the fact that quite often, the umpire can't get more than two or three steps before the ball gets to the defender. As a result, far too many umpires are moving when the ball arrives, rather than stopping, getting set and focusing. In that case, the umpire is better off not going at all.

While there are some occasions where going out is helpful, all too often the resulting position isn't much better, if at all, than the original position. Another problem is that umpires "chase" fly balls. This is a horrible term as it implies that the umpire should, wait for it...chase the ball. That is far from the truth. The umpire should run to get as close to a 90 degree angle looking into the ball.

Consider this: A baseball umpire's starting position is approximately 115 feet from home plate. From his original position, the foul pole can be another 190 feet away. In softball, the foul pole is 190 from home plate. So a baseball umpire's original starting position is the same distance as the plate umpire's position in softball. Somehow the baseball umpire's get most correct and look at the difference in distance, plus the added difficultly because of the smaller ball.

In the play I brought up, the 1BU couldn't possibly gain an advantage by "going out." The most she could have taken was a step and she would have gotten the 90 degree angle. In all reality, if the 2nd baseman had been playing back and actually made a play on the ball, this could have been (though it ultimately wasn't) a potential infield fly. I tend not to go out on infield flies.

My primary point, however, is that if NCAA would simply let the base umpire have catch/no catch responsibility WITHOUT having to commit to going out, they would make must greater use of all umpires.

Here's another example: No runners on. Low liner to the right fielder. NCAA would have the base umpire go out and then have the plate umpire take the play on BR at 1st base. Reality: 1BU can't take but two steps before having to get set. Getting 6 feet closer does virtually nothing to help get the call right. Why not have 1BU turn, signal fair/foul & catch/no catch, then turn back and make the call at 1st base?
I disagree for a couple of reasons. First...one or two steps often does provide a better angle or view in most situations. Of course, there will always be exceptions and perhaps your play is one of them.

I also don't like the idea of "shared responsibilities" as you call them. I believe it can lead to too much confusion between the crew as to who is going to take what call in what situation, and what happens if the two umpires that are "sharing" responsibilities come up with two different calls on the same play? The other issue I have is how to read that your partner is going to turn to take an outfield call, then come back in to make an infield call...I worked with a guy in a two umpire system game this past year that would do this on any ball to right field when he was on the line. He would turn and even take a step or two, which I read as chasing the ball, then he would come back in to pick up runners. We even had a double call at first on one play, fortunately, we both had the same call. For umpires that work together infrequently, even those at a very high level, I just think this could cause more problems than it solves.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote