FED UMPIRES Manual, Let's Start the rewrite

[JRutledge]

Our state does not use the Manual. So who cares what you write.

Peace

[UmpJM]

Page 1: See the CCA Manual.

Page 2: The End

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Page 1: See the CCA Manual.

Page 2: The End

JM

I used to agree.

What CCA had going for it were its expanded visual aids and discussion. I think Evans' new tome surpasses CCA in both areas and others. It will take some time, but I believe it will replace the CCA and the Redbook as the top alternatives to the FED manual.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I used to agree.

What CCA had going for it were its expanded visual aids and discussion. I think Evans' new tome surpasses CCA in both areas and others. It will take some time, but I believe it will replace the CCA and the Redbook as the top alternatives to the FED manual.

MrUmpire,

While I do not own the new Evans/Nelson mechanics manual yet, I understand it is outstanding.

I would suggest the CCA manual simply because it is more affordable and, in addition to 2-man mechanics, covers 3, 4, & 6 man as well. Probably a little more realistic that a majority of umpires might actuallu acquire one.

JM

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I used to agree.

What CCA had going for it were its expanded visual aids and discussion. I think Evans' new tome surpasses CCA in both areas and others. It will take some time, but I believe it will replace the CCA and the Redbook as the top alternatives to the FED manual.

Not at the College level.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

Not at the College level.

I believe I wrote that I thought it would become the alternative for the FED manual. Unless colleges in your area use the FED manual, that's really not an issue.

[justanotherblue]

why not start with the rule book, then worry about the maual.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

why not start with the rule book, then worry about the maual.

The answer would basically be the same: Throw it out.

[jkumpire]

Yes, I know we all have our favorite stuff for mechanics, mine being the six weeks of notes from Harry's in 1985 when I was there.

But you and I all know that FED is not going to adopt CCA mechanics, or an expensive Evans book, also when both are set up for higher levels of baseball than FED is.

And until we all who work BB move to JR's state, we are stuck with FED.

[cc6]

If you work FED, and your assocation tells you to use the FED manual, then that is what you have to use. Not everybody owns the CCA or Evans manual, and even if they did, it's still out of line to do things differently than how the league trains you to. The solution to disagreeing with the FED manual is to not work any more of their games, rather than going against the directions of supervisors and evaluators.

Take the Baseball Ontario umpire's manual for example. It might be a bit different than what is taught in the pro schools, but we go by the Baseball Ontario manual because the majority of people who are carded under OBA haven't been trained PBUC mechanics. For example, PBUC says to go out on any flyball that pulls the center fielder towards the right field line. OBA says to go out on any flyball that pulls the right fielder towards the line. We do things the Ontario way because that's what we are told to do, not because some umpires decide that their way is better than the rest without consulting the book publishers.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

. The solution to disagreeing with the FED manual is to not work any more of their games, rather than going against the directions of supervisors and evaluators.

You seem to be confusing not using FED rules in a FED game as opposed to not working FED mechanics in a FED game.

The answer to FED's crappy manual is to, as an association, adopt another one.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Yes, I know we all have our favorite stuff for mechanics, mine being the six weeks of notes from Harry's in 1985 when I was there.

But you and I all know that FED is not going to adopt CCA mechanics, or an expensive Evans book, also when both are set up for higher levels of baseball than FED is.

And until we all who work BB move to JR's state, we are stuck with FED.

I haven't been "stuck" with FED since....ever. I have never seen a mandate from FED that their manual must be used. From what I've seen on this board, many areas do not work FED mechanics. I believe someone posted that the entire state of Oregon has abandoned them. It also appears that at least parts of Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, California and other states also have left FED mechanics behind.

That said, if your association has endorsed FED mechanics, perhaps you are stuck. My sympathies.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I haven't been "stuck" with FED since....ever. I have never seen a mandate from FED that their manual must be used. From what I've seen on this board, many areas do not work FED mechanics. I believe someone posted that the entire state of Oregon has abandoned them. It also appears that at least parts of Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, California and other states also have left FED mechanics behind.

That said, if your association has endorsed FED mechanics, perhaps you are stuck. My sympathies.

In Alabama, we have our own mechanics manual also. This is used state-wide, not association to association.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Yes, I know we all have our favorite stuff for mechanics, mine being the six weeks of notes from Harry's in 1985 when I was there.

But you and I all know that FED is not going to adopt CCA mechanics, or an expensive Evans book, also when both are set up for higher levels of baseball than FED is.

And until we all who work BB move to JR's state, we are stuck with FED.

States can change any of the mechanics that they want to. The NF does not care or cannot stop you from doing it. The NF creates these books to have a standard if individual jurisdictions choose not to create their own mechanics. There is nothing that says you must follow the FED mechanics or else.

Also keep this in mind, it is not like baseball mechanics are that far off base from each other. The mechanics differences are really minor at least from the CCA Manual to the FED Manual. And just like anything in mechanics, these are guidelines, they are not mandates. There are situations not covered clearly in the mechanics and if your partner does one thing, you have to adjust to cover plays properly. For example the FED tells umpires that are in the A position to go out on every hit to center field to right field. The CCA Mechanics basically says "Read, Pause and React." All I care about is if my partner goes out, I cover what they cannot cover. It is not really that complicated if you ask me.

Peace

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For example the FED tells umpires that are in the A position to go out on every hit to center field to right field.

Actually, it depends on which part of the book you read. There are sections that seem to be telling the umpire in "A" to go out on everything. Other sections tell the umpire to pivot into the infield on routine fly balls.

And that is another problem with the FED manual- editing. It was originally written years ago, so some of the instruction is just plain outdated. Bits-and-pieces have been revised through the years, creating a sometimes disjointed or conflicting document.

I do totally agree with the premise that any state or local association is free to adopt whatever mechanics they see fit.

I wonder if you were to take the FED manual and, say, the CCA manual side-by-side how much of the content would be in agreement. 75%? 90%? More? It just seems that with a little updating, editing and reorganization the NFHS could have themselves a first-rate umpire manual.