|
Gerry Davis good with ASA/USA?
Is the modified mechanic with hands on knees yet still in the slot, "approved" as acceptable plate stance. Tried this last week and it was SO comfortable on old knees and I felt a great lockup. I notice a lot of the NCAA umpires using this.
|
From the July 2016 "Plays and Clarifications" on the USA website:
July 2016 Plays and Clarifications JULY 17, 2016, 10 P.M. (ET) Mechanic Issues: Plate Mechanics As we prepare for the 2016 National Championship season it is imperative that we review several areas of our plate mechanics that have caused concern around the nation. The first topic we would like to discuss is placing your hands on your knees as a locking mechanism for your body. We have always taught that having your hands in front of your body in a comfortable positon is the desired mechanic. However, some umpires prefer to place their hands on their knees to lock themselves in their plate stance. Steadying yourself by placing your hands on your knees is acceptable as long as three things happen. First, you must go to the set position at the top of the strike zone prior to placing your hands on your knees. Second, you should not be resting your weight on your knees. Third, you should not be locked into this position waiting for the pitcher to perform their preliminaries and start the pitch; but instead, as mentioned above, you should wait to place your hands on your knees as you reach the set position. Remember the modified Jerry Davis stance, where an umpire locks their hands on their knees as the pitcher receives the ball and remains in this position for the entire pitch is not acceptable in ASA/USA Softball. |
Thank you.
|
you get micromanaged to this degree?!? uh.....ok
|
Quote:
It is what it is. ;) |
I started using the modified Jerry Davis this year and college softball. I have been having a problem of flinching on the inside pitch. I found that this new stance helped to correct the problem of flinching. And I also found it very comfortable. With the USA season coming up I'm debating on whether to go back to the normal heel-toe stance.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk |
Quote:
No flinching, head doesn't move, really helps track the ball all the way to the glove, takes the pressure off my legs and back. If it adds .0001 seconds to my first movement from that spot because I was locked, I'm happy with that trade-off. Whichever part ANY sanction has issue with, well, I believe we are in a results-first business. |
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
|
I can't get over the fact they can't spell Gerry. The guy's been an MLB umpire forever and sells equipment, too.
|
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
:) |
On a side note.
Quote:
Quote:
Junior and I went to a ASA (now USA Softball) weekend school a few years back to be qualified for National Tournaments (we went for Mark's sake not mine). Naturally as baseball umpires who also umpire softball (and I will add that when we are umpiring softball we do it the softball way and not the baseball way) were dinged because we tracked the ball from the pitcher to the catcher without moving our head. When the school was over, one of the evaluators came over to us and said not to worry about the eyes only as opposed to head only movement. All he cared about was did the PU get the pitch correct. Go figure! MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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: Quote:
|
Quote:
The USA/ASA 12u here in Dallas. |
Quote:
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. :) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
I once experimented, BRIEFLY, with moving back a couple of steps to be the same distance from the plate regardless of catcher.
BRIEFLY |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
I follow the toe-heel, squat in the slot, eyes at top of zone adjusted for batter. I don't get complaints, just a few ooohs and groans in the course of a game.
Yes, the top of the zone is often the question, pitchers and coaches wanting neck and shoulder strikes, which I can see clearly from the correct height. ;) Like the old line: Coach, I looked all over the strike zone and couldn't find it. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So exactly WHY is that too low? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13am. |