Don't get yourself straight-lined!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Publius

It's a bad spot in our games. In MLB, where the throw is accurate 99% of the time, that is a far better position than 2SF to judge whether the runner beats the throw. When things go awry, the shortcoming of the position is magnified, but that doesn't detract from how good a spot it is at that level.

"90 to the line of the throw" is a meaningless standard. You're always at 90. The length and direction of the perpendicular varies with the throw, but you're always at 90.

I disagree that plays at that level are that accurate. They have their share of bad throws just like we do at our levels. The difference is they have that look almost all the time, where we have to move inside the diamond and still have to make those calls.

Peace

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it has anything to do with laziness, but an old mechanic that umpires that are older love to hold onto. Actually he had to hustle to get to that spot, but it is just a bad spot.

Peace

That spot was never position to take that call in any mechanic system.

You are so intent to fault the 90 degree positioning that you are using that argument when the umpire wasn't close to 90 degrees.

He was lazy in that he never adjusted to the throw.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Publius

It's a bad spot in our games. In MLB, where the throw is accurate 99% of the time, that is a far better position than 2SF to judge whether the runner beats the throw. When things go awry, the shortcoming of the position is magnified, but that doesn't detract from how good a spot it is at that level.

"90 to the line of the throw" is a meaningless standard. You're always at 90. The length and direction of the perpendicular varies with the throw, but you're always at 90.

Nonsense. That is, if you really understand 90 degrees.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

That spot was never position to take that call in any mechanic system.

You are so intent to fault the 90 degree positioning that you are using that argument when the umpire wasn't close to 90 degrees.

He was lazy in that he never adjusted to the throw.

I am not intent on anything, just stating that that was once taught and this appears to be the way this umpire was taught. This was the standard when I first started and I still see MLB umpires doing this or old timers. And I disagreed with the lazy comment because it was not about being lazy, it was using a flawed system. I do not care if you disagree, but that is my take on the play.

Peace

[Publius]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Nonsense. That is, if you really understand 90 degrees.

I understand 'at a 90 degree angle' means 'perpendicular to.' Superimpose the line from the throw's origin to the bag on the picture, and I guarantee you I can draw a perpendicular between that line and Welke. And if the line of the throw is moved and/or Welke's position is moved, I still can.

If trainers would use the 45/15 vernacular (on a line through, when looking from the plate, the top left and bottom right corners of the bag--a 45 degree angle to the foul line--about 15 feet from the bag), new umpires would understand it a lot better.

Had Welke been there--roughly at the spot on the field hidden by where the screen is attached to the guy-wire--he'd have easily seen this play, and had an easy 1-2 step adjustment in any direction.