Gerry Davis still not good ASA/USA

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I do have a question about the modified GD, however. When I worked baseball, the GD was introduced in camps and clinics I attended, and required us to square up in the slot but higher and further back than you would for the heel-toe stance. What actually is different under the "modified" version? I've been told it was just that the feet are back to being heel-toe instead of square, but is there more to it?

Also, don't you have to adjust the width of your feet to adjust to the top of each batter's strike zone? It seems counterintuitive to have to spread your feet wider for those shorter batters; your using different widths for different batters. I prefer to always have my feet the same width apart, and then just sit down lower for those shorter players.

It so happens I wrote something on another (local) board today explaining why we work the mechanics we do (he was particularly blaming the slot for inconsistent outside corner calls). Some of it answers your primary question about the modified GD as it should apply in softball, and why it HAS TO BE different than baseball to be effective.

As to the second, if you WANT to be locked and set with eyes at the top, spreading wider is the best way to adjust to different batter heights. Sitting differently is equally counter-intuitive, and it relies on muscles to stay set and locked, whereas the locked body set of the GD takes the strain OFF the muscles.

Originally Posted by ATLUMPSTEVE

The "old school" way of standing behind the catcher is better described as a baseball set, rather than softball. And even MLB and all their schools now teach/preach the slot, because the umpire CAN see the ball in the zone better. Here's why.

Look at where batters stand in baseball. The vast majority stand in the very back of the batter's box. Put the catcher even farther back, the umpire behind him. In most cases, the umpire is now 6', or even more, behind the plate. Why is that significant? Because, no matter what else you may have heard, the strike zone is defined by the ball when it crosses the plate, not when it passes the batter, no matter where the batter stands. Nor by where the catcher catches it. The umpire is to visualize the batter standing directly even with the plate to determine the height (both top and bottom) of the strike zone for that batter.

Can an umpire 6' behind the plate see over a catcher and see the ball over the plate? Yes, although the umpire cannot set the head/eyes at the top of the zone, he must look down from over the catcher, and judge both the top and bottom of the zone at a place somewhere up there. And if the catcher pops up, the umpire sees NOTHING. It's not so easy.

Now think where batters stand in softball. The vast majority (at least in upper level ball) stand in the very front of the box. That helps them get the ball before a last break, helps keep the batted ball fair. Smart catchers move up, too; it's a great target for the pitcher to hit a glove that is 1' behind the plate, and it helps the catcher grab that drop before it bounces. Now apply geometry and tell me where an umpire sets to SEE the ball when it actually passes the plate that the catcher's body is right behind? To be behind the catcher and see the plate, the umpire would have to stand straight up and look straight down. Poor position to judge height, leaves the umpire as a target to hit by pitches and foul balls, and if the catcher pops; well, that's an automatic ball.

The strike zone is a rectangle, with four sides; if you could limit the judgment to just two of those dimensions, wouldn't an umpire be more consistent? So, if an umpire can set his eyes on the top of each batter's zone, and also with his nose on the inside corner, two of the parameters are locked, and only two remaining are judgments. If eyes are at the top of the zone, the bottom of the zone is actually CLOSER than if looking down over the top, so the umpire should be more consistent on the bottom as well. If the umpire sets his nose on the edge of the batter's box on the inside, with his eyes at the top of the zone, and moves forward so that his head is almost next to the catcher, the umpire can lock in the top, lock in the inside edge, be close to the bottom, see the ball all the away across the plate and all the way into the catcher's glove. If the catcher pops up, who cares? The umpire still sees PAST the catcher, across the plate, across and thru the zone.

So what about the outside corner? Yes, it's judgment; but it's exactly where it has been all my career!! The inside "river" is 6" wide, the plate is 17" wide, the outside "river" is 6" wide. Same spot every day and night. And the umpire sees the ball across the plate, and the good catcher stick that spot on the edge (and the poorly taught catcher DRAG that ball back, saying to EVERYONE "that's a ball, I know I need to make it LOOK better").

Any catcher that sets up directly behind the catcher in fast pitch is calling balls and strikes based on where the ball was last visible BEFORE it reaches the plate (guesstimating where it passed the plate instead of seeing it); and the best pitchers' job is to make the batter chase that pitch she thinks a strike when it is not, and a ball which will break back into the zone taken for a called strike. I'm not seeing any plus to fooling the umpire the same way, having him judge balls and strikes before they are either.

The three most common reasons an umpire cannot consistently see an accurate zone (aside from mistakes or simply poor judgment) are 1) NOT in the slot, 2) set too deep (the deeper you are, the more the catcher's presence blocks the plate), or set too high (forcing judgment on the top of the zone, and making the bottom even farther away. I'm not selling you the "ASA" mechanics because I am a lifer; I'm telling you how I help umpires that I evaluate to improve their game.

[Manny A]

So, again, the only difference between the "normal" GD and the "modified" GD is that the umpire in the latter is closer to the plate, feet at heel-toe instead of squared, and feet spread wider to adjust to the top of the batter's zone?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So, again, the only difference between the "normal" GD and the "modified" GD is that the umpire in the latter is closer to the plate, feet at heel-toe instead of squared, and feet spread wider to adjust to the top of the batter's zone?

You could say it that way.

I would look at it as more that the only difference between the USA/ASA stance that NCAA is also now pushing as THE stance (heel-toe as THEY describe it) and the "modified" GD is what you do with your arms and hands (hands pulled into your groin and set with your quads and lower back, or hands on knees and locked set and still with your arms).

It seems to me that if you get your head where it needs to be for optimal judgment (eyes top of zone, nose on the batter's box line, and far enough forward to be looking across the plate), then no association or sanction should be concerned with how the rest of your body is configured. Well, unless you interfere with the catcher or a subsequent play because you cannot move quickly enough.

That said, all the now "unapproved" stances that could accomplish that (modified GD, scissors, split scissors) should be acceptable. It is an absurd thought process (or an out-and-out fabrication) that tries to tell us that our head is more susceptible to injury when our legs are configured in scissors than in heel-toe, if/when the head is placed in the exact same location by either stance.

To those that aren't familiar with my definition change of "ear on the corner" to "nose on the line", well I just know better where my nose is than where my ear is; and I don't think I am alone in that thought process.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

As to the second, if you WANT to be locked and set with eyes at the top, spreading wider is the best way to adjust to different batter heights. Sitting differently is equally counter-intuitive, and it relies on muscles to stay set and locked, whereas the locked body set of the GD takes the strain OFF the muscles.

Amen. I switched to the GD stance four years ago, and it has made me a better umpire. In 2008, I went back to school full-time while also working full-time, and quit umpiring for the interim until I graduated in 2012. During that time, I gained about 30 lbs, and sat my a$s to the bone between working and schoolwork.

When I came back to umpiring in 2013, the fatigue I experienced behind the plate was surprising. It affected my timing, and I was poorly locked in. I switched to GD just to survive during a PGF tournament, and immediately noticed the difference. I was able to get my head to the same location for every batter (except really short ones, but that's common to every stance) and keep it there. I quit inadvertently leaning to follow outside pitches as my head could turn on an axis as I tracked the pitch to the glove, and my arms kept my torso locked. As a result, I get hit less too. This might be anecdotal, but I used to eat a pitch/foul ball off the facemask about once a month. Now, since I stay more solidly in the slot through the process of the entire pitch, I notice foul balls flying past my inside ear, missing me, rather than getting whacked in the face or shoulder.

Downsides of GD: It takes just a little longer to pivot around the catcher on a passed ball/high foul pop. If the catcher stands up, you WILL get blocked...whereas with "ASA" heel/toe, you have the torso flexibility to adjust and peek around F2. I also found that it was easier to get TOO low, i.e. chin below the catcher's helmet. That wasn't a problem when I worked heel/toe, as I started higher and set when the pitch started. My arms are slightly more vulnerable on my knees, but so long as I remember to tuck my knuckles behind the top of my shin guards, I'm OK. I unlock my elbows slightly when I go set, so any ball hitting my arms will do so at an angle. The back of my hand between my thumb joint and wrist is the most exposed part. I haven't been hit there yet, but it will eventually happen and it will hurt.

It's not entirely without drawbacks, but the Gerry Davis stance works for me, and I am a big proponent of it for umpires with experience. I also think we should teach new umpires to use heel/toe if possible, to prevent them from developing bad habits such as getting frozen in place, and other things that crop up when we put our hands on our knees.

[bigdogtx]

I've had two recent tournaments and ended up doing the championship games. had several parents and 3 coaches tell me I had the most consistent strike zone of all the umpires they saw those weekends.

As I am getting more comfortable with the setup and my timing per ASA, I have gained a ton of confidence and I feel I hardly miss ANY pitch. I will use it in an ASA National and see if I get critiqued by the seasoned (old) guard.

[teebob21]

Big Dog, what national did you get?

Edit: 2 months ago, I did not fully appreciate how true Steve's comment was, so I will repost it:

It seems to me that if you get your head where it needs to be for optimal judgment (eyes top of zone, nose on the batter's box line, and far enough forward to be looking across the plate), then no association or sanction should be concerned with how the rest of your body is configured.

Words to live by. We call strikes with our eyes and brain. Both reside in your head. Get the head in the right place and the rest will naturally follow.

[bigdogtx]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Big Dog, what national did you get?

Edit: 2 months ago, I did not fully appreciate how true Steve's comment was, so I will repost it:



Words to live by. We call strikes with our eyes and brain. Both reside in your head. Get the head in the right place and the rest will naturally follow.

The USA/ASA 12u here in Dallas.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Big Dog, what national did you get?

Edit: 2 months ago, I did not fully appreciate how true Steve's comment was, so I will repost it:



Words to live by. We call strikes with our eyes and brain. Both reside in your head. Get the head in the right place and the rest will naturally follow.

Absolutely agree. But I think the concern is what could happen. Not everyone can follow directions and get their head in the right place. Some umpires get very comfortable in their stance and that is a great place to be. Unfortunately, some get too comfortable in a certain stance and lose track of the fact their head isn't where it is supposed to be. IOW, I believe there is a train of thought that some will put the stance above the priority of getting a good look at the strike zone. IMO, those are the umpires who need to be corrected.

If you get the opportunity this summer, watch whatever youth baseball and softball you can on TV. Many of these guys/gals will look good behind the plate, but I'm willing to bet there will be some not at the top of the zone nor lined up on the inside edge of the plate. And it isn't just those using a GD stance. If nothing else, you need to give USA points for consistency.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Absolutely agree. But I think the concern is what could happen. Not everyone can follow directions and get their head in the right place. Some umpires get very comfortable in their stance and that is a great place to be. Unfortunately, some get too comfortable in a certain stance and lose track of the fact their head isn't where it is supposed to be. IOW, I believe there is a train of thought that some will put the stance above the priority of getting a good look at the strike zone. IMO, those are the umpires who need to be corrected.



If you get the opportunity this summer, watch whatever youth baseball and softball you can on TV. Many of these guys/gals will look good behind the plate, but I'm willing to bet there will be some not at the top of the zone nor lined up on the inside edge of the plate. And it isn't just those using a GD stance. If nothing else, you need to give USA points for consistency.

This must be one of those softball-only concepts.

I have no desire to get down to the top of the zone. I want to be locked at the same spot for every batter, head just above the top of the catcher's helmet.

I don't need my eyes there to know where it is. Just like the outside corner or the knee.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich

This must be one of those softball-only concepts.

I have no desire to get down to the top of the zone. I want to be locked at the same spot for every batter, head just above the top of the catcher's helmet.

Even when I started in baseball in 1966, it was the top of the zone.

I don't need my eyes there to know where it is. Just like the outside corner or the knee.

So you can call the game with your eyes closed?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Even when I started in baseball in 1966, it was the top of the zone.







So you can call the game with your eyes closed?

Things change.

What's more important now is that you lock in comsistently for every batter.

Your final comment is just silly. I don't put my eyes at the knees or outside corner and I can still call those. You know that's what I meant.

[CecilOne]

I once experimented, BRIEFLY, with moving back a couple of steps to be the same distance from the plate regardless of catcher.

BRIEFLY

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich

This must be one of those softball-only concepts.

I have no desire to get down to the top of the zone. I want to be locked at the same spot for every batter, head just above the top of the catcher's helmet.

I don't need my eyes there to know where it is. Just like the outside corner or the knee.

Don't know why softball wants our eyes at the top of the zone. I thought maybe it was to judge the rise ball better, which you don't see in baseball. But most rise ball pitches are way above the zone as batters swing at pitches that the catcher virtually has to stand upright to catch.

To this day (ten years after switching from baseball), I still get the occasional critique that I'm setting up too high, but I feel I can judge the pitches at the top of the zone just fine. And most good softball pitchers are going after the corners at the knees, so I don't get to judge too many pitches at top of the zone to begin with.

[Colo Blue]

What gets me is, the CCA manual and instructors tell you to set your head height no higher than the top of the strike zone, and your chin should be no lower than the top of the catcher's helmet. That only works when you have a tall batter and a small catcher.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And most good softball pitchers are going after the corners at the knees, so I don't get to judge too many pitches at top of the zone to begin with.

The majority of good softball pitchers will pitch to their strength and/or the situation as the game dictates. For many of them, that may not include corners at the knees.

When I pitched, I worked the top of the zone with a lazy rise/curve ball. I wasn't good enough to spin it fast enough to get a pure rise with lots of movement.

Tie game, late inning, runner on first with no outs, most coaches will have batters other than 3 through 5 bunting. This typically calls for the pitcher to throw to the top of the zone to try to induce a pop up.

Slow batter runner at bat with a runner on first base would call for drop balls to try and get the ground ball for a chance at a double play.

Not all pitchers can command every type of pitch. They're probably comfortable with their fastball and one other pitch that moves, and maybe 7% of the time, a change up.

Even HS varsity pitchers aren't all accomplished hurlers. Every once in a while I come across one that has electric "stuff". It's a work in progress for most. A few years back, the pitching distance was changed from 40 to 43 feet. I think part of that was due to simply speed. Good fastball pitchers were dominating the game. When the distance was pushed back, I think dominant pitchers now need a mix of speed and ball movement.