try it some time. it just works, you'll see how it all comes together

Is there some site or something I can get on that explains the GD stance? I read what you guys write about it and how great it is and everything, but I don't exactly know what it is. When I was taught my stance, I wasn't given an official name for it (though i think it might be the heel-toe), so if I see it described then I might realize that I already do it.

The heel-toe and the GD are two different stances.

The GD (Gerry Davis) stance can be found illustrated at:
http://childress.officiating.com/?d=...vis+Part+I.pdf

and

http://childress.officiating.com/?d=...is+Part+II.pdf

I am not a fan of the GD stance at all. All the guys that I see trying it are terribly inconsistent on their low strike, and tend to not give the high strike too often. :(

I use a modified GD stance. I am MUCH closer to the catcher, and do not work that high (which is dangerous! you are more apt to get hit by foul tips working that high....yes, I have tried the GD, and didn't like being that much of a target). I get my chin to the top of the catchers helmet (roughly).

Working three feet behind the catcher just doesn't work. Again, everybody I see calling from that far back usually has a major inconsistency in their strike zone, and it REALLY calls attention to itself! I hear coaches complain all the time about the local guys that use the GD, about how they are "too far back to call the low pitch right" is what I hear most often.

Oh well, those that use the GD are convinced that they are doing everything good. Whatever gets them through a game I guess.

The GD stance is also totally discouraged in the NCAA umpiring standards.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/cham...PreviewState=0

How do you get this perception from the document. GD is best for absolutely locking in on a pitch, the first item listed on the document.

If you are inconsistent in GD, you are gonna be inconsistent w/ the box or scissors. The dead-rock-solid lock-in gives you the OPPORTUNITY for an absolutely consistent "look" at every pitch. If you can't call the up/down consistently in GD, the problem is YOU, not your stance.

Oh, yeah: NOBODY doing GD has EVER been hit by a "foul tip":rolleyes: nor in any other stance, for that matter. Foul balls, maybe .... but I've been doing Davis for 2 years now, including time behind some pretty lame catchers, and the only times I've been drilled were pitches that'd hit me no matter what stance I was in ... only difference w/ the stance is WHERE they hit me. Most of what I've been hit by gets the middle plate of my hardshell CP: where it not for the loud THWOCK!!! I'd not know anything had happened.
Well, in fairness to pdx: the last bullet point [does not set up too high or deep] COULD be a shot at GD, although GD seems to hit for every other one of the bullets in the evaluation standard.

If you're getting hit by foul balls a lot, you're almost surely not in a good slot position. When the foul balls are whizzing by your ear but missing you, then you're in the slot.

Sorry, I have just seen far too many guys missing a LOT of low pitches when they set up that high and that far back.

Move closer to the catcher and a bit lower, THEN you got a good thing going!

There is a reason the GD is NOT taught in the pro schools and camps taught by professional umpires. While it may make you "stable", it is still setting you up in a lousy position to call pitches. There are still times when "proximity" is a good thing, and the closer I can get to the plate is MUCH better for calling balls and strikes.

How do you reconcile (on that chart):

"Maintains the same strike zone throughout the game"

and

"Has a grasp of how the zone may be adjusted in a lopsided game"?

..in the same evaluation paragraph?


:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Well, if the game is not lopsided, and you maintain the same strike zone throughout the game, you have done well.

If the game is lopsided, and you adjusted your zone in a way that kept things moving along, you have done well.

Is this such a hard concept to understand? I don't get what part of that you don't understand. It seemed VERY obvious to me the first time I read it.

I don't know of ANY higher level (at least college level) umpires who DON'T adjust their zone to be a bit bigger in lopsided games. It is a perfectly acceptable practice, and is obviously endorsed by the NCAA.

I would be a fool to call a "rule book" strike zone in a game that is 20-3. I am expanding that zone to get out of their a bit quicker. Nobody is complaining!

I understand the concept perfectly well, I was more or less poking at the apparent contradiction on the form, two paragraphs apart. I take my humor where I can get it :D

Just shows again that you cannot effectively manage a game by going strictly by the rules and nothing but. There is accepted usage, tradition, etc to consider as well if you want to be more than a barely-adequate umpire.

PDX, I'll continue to use the GD. Most of the umpires I work with are now converting to it as well. That is not a coincidence that is irrelevant. I work with NCAA umpires, by the way, who are also seeing an increasing number of GD converts.

I use results to measure success or failure, and my personal results tell me that the GD has made a great improvement in my game.

Maybe I am missing something, but there does not seem to be any contradiction. They want you to call a consistent zone innings 1-9. IF the game becomes lopsided, they want you to be able to "adjust" your zone.

Just because "consistent zone innings 1-9" comes first does not mean that is cast in stone.