body position for Position B and C

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I'm not arguing that the book is wrong. I'm just saying that I prefer not having to take that step on a pickoff if I don't have to. Some of those pickoffs are so quick that you're not set at the tag or just barely so.
The way I set up I just turn my head, no change in elevation, no over the shoulder, no body movement. I think it's hard to argue that that is less effecient than a body turn.

Taking that step gets you the angle. Assuming you are about 40 feet from the base, getting about 7 feet with a step and a pivot gives you 10 degrees more. That can mean the difference between seeing a tag or a$$es and elbows.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Well, I played around with it today... 16 year old Mickey Mantle League game (AAU teams mainly).

I quickly realized that when in C the runner would get to directly behind by back on his secondary lead. Can't peek over the right shoulder from there... so I figured my C position must have been very off, and moved myself closer to 2nd. Does this sound right?

Then, there were some peeks where I could see the runner, and others where I never did (because he wasn't getting a big secondary, or because he was 2 steps behind the baseline) making my peek back obsolete. Does this ever happen?

I also realized that in a Deep B with 2 outs, it is very easy to peek at an R2. And in B, also easy to peak at R1.

But where I was getting a good peek at R2 was really from a deep C, not C at all. From where C is, I'd have to turn my head 180 degrees to see the kid...

What am I doing wrong, if anything?

(edited for the difference between peak and peek, for all the peekers of this peak performance post).

I just took a peek at your post. I don't advocate peeking in B at R1, nor do I believe in working B with 2 out and R2 (different discussion). The only reason for the peek in C with R2 is to get a good jump on the best angle for the play at third, and getting as close as possible to the foul line. You're only going to get a couple steps closer to the line, but at least you don't get flat-footed and end up lookiing straight up the runner's behind on the steal. It isn't really necessary to actually locate R2 when you glance over your right shoulder, and you never need to glance over your left. It only matters whether or not he's going. If you look and he's not going, then you let the ball take you where you need to look.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Then, there were some peeks where I could see the runner, and others where I never did (because he wasn't getting a big secondary, or because he was 2 steps behind the baseline) making my peek back obsolete. Does this ever happen?

Assuming your "C" position is correct, it's NOT "wrong" to not see the runner -- that means he's not going. If you do see the runner, and he's moving, then he's going (if he's not moving, he's far off the base and you might see a throw from F2 or a pick-off attempt on the next pitch).

[LMan]

Interest in this topic has peaked.

[UmpJM]

Lman,

I don't know. My curiosity is piqued.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I'm not arguing that the book is wrong. I'm just saying that I prefer not having to take that step on a pickoff if I don't have to. Some of those pickoffs are so quick that you're not set at the tag or just barely so.
The way I set up I just turn my head, no change in elevation, no over the shoulder, no body movement.

I've seen umpires set up so that they only have to turn their heads on pick-offs instead of taking a step to get the proper angle. They usually wore ball bags and cleaned off the rubber between innings.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I've seen umpires set up so that they only have to turn their heads on pick-offs instead of taking a step to get the proper angle. They usually wore ball bags and cleaned off the rubber between innings.

My base brush is to big for my pocket so how else am I to carry it?