Gerry Davis still not good ASA/USA

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by scrounge

you get micromanaged to this degree?!? uh.....ok

Things are weird all over...

Scrounge, I'm sure that you are familiar with the Central Ohio Baseball Umpires Association.

Back around 2004 I had started using the Gerry Davis stance. About that same time I was scheduled for an on-field evaluation by one of the senior umpires for that group (who I believe is still with the group).

On my evaluation I was dinged for "putting my hands on my knees" and told that a plate umpire should NEVER do that. I was using the stance exactly as it's described, working a little bit higher and a little bit farther back and I got dinged for "being too high and too far back" too.

We can get goofy advice from a variety of sources!

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Things are weird all over...

Scrounge, I'm sure that you are familiar with the Central Ohio Baseball Umpires Association.

Back around 2004 I had started using the Gerry Davis stance. About that same time I was scheduled for an on-field evaluation by one of the senior umpires for that group (who I believe is still with the group).

On my evaluation I was dinged for "putting my hands on my knees" and told that a plate umpire should NEVER do that. I was using the stance exactly as it's described, working a little bit higher and a little bit farther back and I got dinged for "being too high and too far back" too.

We can get goofy advice from a variety of sources!

Heh...yes, I'm fairly connected in that group You were a trailblazer - heck, most of the senior guys use it now.

[Rich]

I can't get over the fact they can't spell Gerry. The guy's been an MLB umpire forever and sells equipment, too.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich

I can't get over the fact they can't spell Gerry. The guy's been an MLB umpire forever and sells equipment, too.

Well, apparently in some parts of this country, Gerry with a G is considered as the feminine alternative to Jerry with a J, or so I was informed.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Rich

I can't get over the fact they can't spell Gerry. The guy's been an MLB umpire forever and sells equipment, too.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, apparently in some parts of this country, Gerry with a G is considered as the feminine alternative to Jerry with a J, or so I was informed.

Or, maybe it is to avoid infringing... Gerry Davis®

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, apparently in some parts of this country, Gerry with a G is considered as the feminine alternative to Jerry with a J, or so I was informed.

Perhaps. But it IS the way he spells his name. If anyone should know how to spell it correctly, I would expect the staff at NUS to know.

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.

[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?

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Strictly personal, but been there, done that.

When I first moved away from the balloon (1967), my stance was similar to what is now claimed as the GD stance which really isn't anything new.

To start, the stance many use in today's version provides less protection to your quads. AFA the hands, have you ever caught a foul ball on the hand when it is not on your knees or leg? When I was young, I got away from placing my hands above my knees simply because it gives them no place to go if hit. IOW, your hand is between the ball and a hard place. Okay, so it isn't that hard, but it is not as forgiving as I would like if being struck by a hard object.

I also found myself locking into a position. I see it now with some umpires using their knees for support. Yes, it can be comfortable, but I've seen comfort placed over positioning. Watch some of the youth ball on TV this summer and see how many umpires using the GD can/will drop to the top of the zone.

Like I said, strictly personal preference based upon years of different experiences