WSH - CWS Estabrook reversed...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

One of the umpires in our association is current assigned to the minor leagues. I've got a message into him to see what PBUC's recommended mechanic on this is since you brought it up.

Cool. I'll be glad to know -- as I say, I see this all the time now.

[TussAgee11]

PBUC says "shoot for 90 degrees, but if you go a little further, its better than not going far enough".

Naturally, everybody goes a little further and wider.

[UMP25]

90 degrees on a swipe tag? That's insane, just insane. Never mind that it makes it virtually impossible to SEE the tag.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by UMP25

90 degrees on a swipe tag? That's insane, just insane. Never mind that it makes it virtually impossible to SEE the tag.

90 degrees is where you start. You can adjust from there with a step or two depending on where the throw is.

[UMP25]

A step or two is one thing--that's understandable. However, Estabrook was more than a "step or two."

[TussAgee11]

You lock in once you read true throw. Estabrook correctly did not read true throw and immediately began adjusting towards the line. It was textbook.

I was more curious to see if anyone had opinions on the reversal and the aftermath. At the college level, you probably get away with this reversal and its seen as "getting together and getting the call right". At the professional level, you only get one shot at it. Completely different expectations.

[UMP25]

Well, I can tell you that at the MLB level, the emphasis the last couple of years has also been "getting the call right." The PU in the game in question was one of my classmates at umpire school and has spoken at my association's banquet in the past. I was almost tempted to call Jeff and ask him about this philosophy and if it was the reason why things transpired the way they did. However, I decided not to bring it up.

BTW, as far as Estabrook adjusting toward the line, he didn't do much adjusting, which was his problem. Had he been able to get to the line, I think he would have seen things as Jeff did.

[MikeStrybel]

Rule #1 in umpiring: There are no perfect angles/positions to make calls.

Rule #2 in umpiring: Soemone will always think you should have been positioned somewhere else to make the call.

99% of the time, calls at first can be made from where he is positioned. A decade ago there was an MLB movement to take calls at first from just a step or two inside the line. They found that they were missing more calls and have adjusted accordingly. Evolutionary mechanics on display.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Well, I can tell you that at the MLB level, the emphasis the last couple of years has also been "getting the call right." The PU in the game in question was one of my classmates at umpire school and has spoken at my association's banquet in the past. I was almost tempted to call Jeff and ask him about this philosophy and if it was the reason why things transpired the way they did. However, I decided not to bring it up.

BTW, as far as Estabrook adjusting toward the line, he didn't do much adjusting, which was his problem. Had he been able to get to the line, I think he would have seen things as Jeff did.

Personally, I thought the adjustment was a bit late. But I can empathize -- I've been there, too.

I don't think there's any way the PU has a good enough view to overturn this or even initiate the conversation. But I didn't have his exact view, so this is just an opinion from seeing the replays and knowing how these plays go down and look from each position.

I've never moved away from 90 degrees. It's always been good enough for Jim Evans and his school and I'm most interested in seeing the foot and adjusting for the bad throw and tag. I don't always adjust quickly enough, but I do most of the time.

[UMP25]

It is difficult to adjust that quickly, especially when we're supposed to be stationary when making the final call. If we're still adjusting, odds are we're still moving, which is not beneficial.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Personally, I thought the adjustment was a bit late. But I can empathize -- I've been there, too.

I don't think there's any way the PU has a good enough view to overturn this or even initiate the conversation. But I didn't have his exact view, so this is just an opinion from seeing the replays and knowing how these plays go down and look from each position.

I've never moved away from 90 degrees. It's always been good enough for Jim Evans and his school and I'm most interested in seeing the foot and adjusting for the bad throw and tag. I don't always adjust quickly enough, but I do most of the time.

Originally Posted by UMP25

It is difficult to adjust that quickly, especially when we're supposed to be stationary when making the final call. If we're still adjusting, odds are we're still moving, which is not beneficial.

All of the above, and the fact that we occasionally get a late read on bad throws out of complacency, as the expected good or decent throw is what usually occurs, and we anticipate it. That momentary hesitation can mean just getting a step and a lean/look at the swipe tag.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Cool. I'll be glad to know -- as I say, I see this all the time now.

He Emailed me to explain that PBUC teaches to get a 90-degree angle to the throw and adjust accordingly, which was the way I was taught at school, so it's nice to see things haven't changed in that regard. For swipe tags, one is taught to line up in a straight line with the fielder, runner, and tag in order to best view the tag attempt.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm thinking there must be a new mechanic coming up from PBUC.

There is a new mechanic with regard to three and four man crews...at least some PBUC evaluators are preaching to go one step further than where you would stop and be at a 90-degree angle. I literally stayed up until 2 a.m. debating it with two PBUC evaluators this past off-season. (My wife was horrified when she saw what we were doing to our living room.) The red book is being re-written, too. Don't know when it will be out, and I don't know if they will change the 90-degree mechanic in that book (for two-man crews).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by lawump

There is a new mechanic with regard to three and four man crews...at least some PBUC evaluators are preaching to go one step further than where you would stop and be at a 90-degree angle. I literally stayed up until 2 a.m. debating it with two PBUC evaluators this past off-season. (My wife was horrified when she saw what we were doing to our living room.) The red book is being re-written, too. Don't know when it will be out, and I don't know if they will change the 90-degree mechanic in that book (for two-man crews).

It seems to me that they are moving in the wrong direction ...

[Durham]

Law, did they share with you why they felt it was a better look?