FED UMPIRES Manual, Let's Start the rewrite

[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 It was originally written years ago, so some of the instruction is just plain outdated.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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

This is the very reason my state threw out all NF Mechanics books as the way to follow mechanics. It is not uncommon that mechanics are rarely changed and when situations come up that show a flaw in the mechanics, it takes more than necessary to change a positioning or practice. That not to say our mechanics are perfect, but they at least can be changed.

Originally Posted by BretMan

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

Just so you know that appears to be the NF position on the issue. I have said this before, Mary Struckoff who is the editor of the NF Basketball Book and works for the NF commented on this very thing a few years ago. And I asked her personally when she came to a convention in our state of officials. She made it very clear the NF does not care if states come up with their own mechanics and said there was nothing the NF could do about it if a state or association wants to deviate from their mechanics. And she even gave a couple of examples of states that choose do their own thing (even though she personally disagreed with a particular mechanic) and the state was unwilling to follow the NF standard.

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

I am sure if the NF spent a little more time and money to create a better product, that more states would be willing to follow their mechanics. And I think the biggest problem with the NF and their mechanics books is the fact that you do not see a lot of officials on the committee and when changes are made they are not with consideration from people that have actually strapped up the uniform. Then again, this is just my opinion. I am sure there will be those that disagree with that part of this discussion.

Peace