Gerry Davis Mechanics
 

I read an article linked from the Baseball forum and was wondering what the thought is about these mechanics and their relation to fastpitch?

tcblue,

I posed this same question here about a month ago, on a thread discussing plate mechanics. No one responded (except for one person that, judging from his response, had no idea what the GD system was).

I have experimented with this stance and there are pros and cons- just like with any other stance. I've used it in some scrimmage games and practices, but when it comes to "real" games I tend to go back to what I am familiar with and has worked for me in the past. One less thing to worry about, I guess.

Aside from the post I mentioned above, I have never seen any discussion of this stance on any of the numerous softball boards I frequent, nor have I ever seen this stance used in any fastpitch softball games.

So, I'm still up in the air on this one and might try it some more this spring. Maybe I'm just an old dog and it's a new trick!

I am in my second season using the GD stance for baseball (after many, many years of using the slot). I’m also in my first year doing HS softball and I use the GD stance. I personally find that it gives me a better view of the plate (especially the outside corners) and the ball all the way to F2’s mitt. It also is less stressful on my worn out knees.

Here’s a portion of some information that I found on Officiating.com explaining the GD Stance. I do not remember who wrote it so I’ll apologize to the author in advance.

Assume the Set position:

Spread your legs much wider than your shoulders
Lean over and put both hands on your knees
Don’t push down on your shin guards

Get comfortable:

Rest you weight on your knees
Lock and tuck your elbows
Just before the time of the pitch drop your seat about 4”

See the plate:

Put you nose on the inside corner and keep it there
Move if the batter or catcher blocks your view of the pitcher’s release point
Work an arms length (about 3’) behind the catcher

The GD stance has several weaknesses in softball, in my opinion. The first is that it leaves the umpire's head very high looking down through the zone, forcing a judgment on the top of the zone, and making the judgment more difficult at the knees; compared to setting your eyes at the top of the zone, and making anything above your eyes a ball, and anything below your eyes a possible strike. That can be overlooked with consistency, but it still requires more judgment than necessary.

The second issue is much more problematic. In the softball game, the batter is most often in the front of the batters box, and the catcher then moves up to a point almost directly behind the plate. If you, as an umpire, set up 3' behind the catcher, the last time you will see the ball is 3' in front of the plate, because the catcher's body will take that space in front of her away from you. This is not an issue in baseball, when batters universally stand in the back of a box that is 4' behind the plate; it is a huge and insurmountable problem when the batter is 4' in front of the plate.

If you claim to see the ball across the plate into the catchers glove with that stance with the catcher directly behind home plate, you are only fooling yourself.

I have not experienced the problems with the upper & lower zone you write about. I watch the ball and easily see where it goes in the GD stance. In fact as I said before, I get a better (longer) view of the ball. I have found the GD stance to be the best stance I have used in 30 years of umpiring.

I could go into a long, but probably futile, discussion with you on the how your experiences with the GD stance are probably due to you not knowing how to work the stance properly.

Just MHO

My experiences are as an evaluator; I have never personally tried the GD stance. But, I have evaluated and worked with numerous top baseball umpires who have attempted to use the same stance in softball, and that has exposed the weaknesses. For that reason, I have to reject your supposition, as my working the stance isn't a factor.

The upper and lower zone issues can be, as I said, overcome. But, as a technique for teaching the masses, the other method (eyes at the top of the zone) creates more consistency with less judgment involved.

A drop ball pitcher is especially effective with a GD stance plate umpire; all batters move up to hit the drop while it is up, but the ball consistently will drop before the plate with the PU never seeing it drop off the knees.

I had a feeling that we would never agree :-)

I have used the Gerry Davis stance in both softball and baseball for the past 2 seasons. I do not have any trouble seeing the both sides of the plate and have no more trouble judging a low pitch when the batter is all the way forward in the box than in the heel and toe stance. It has helped me be more consistant primarily because I am set well ahead of the pitch.

Last year (in a futile attempt to work after I injured my knee) I used the Gerry Davis stance.

I ditched it for one good reason.

If you are using the GD stance you are having to make an additional judgement: at the top of the zone.

Using the softball stance the way we teach everyone, you don't have to make a judgement. If your eyes are set at the top of the zone, you don't have to judge: if your eyes go up to track the ball through the zone, it's high.

There is one major advantage to using the GD system. Your head height NEVER varies, you get the same look for every batter and every pitch. You have a consistent LOCK IN on every pitch. Therefore you are much more consistent then when you move your head for every batter depending on where the top of the strike zone is. The one major problem I see when doing softball and baseball, is the movement of the head while tracking the pitch.

The "judgment" issues you speak of are insignificant, the top of the strike zone is the top of the strike zone, and if the ball passes within that area its a strike.

Almost universally, evaluators do not like the GD. They will always say something like..."gee, you were really consistent today, and you called a great zone. But lose that crazy stance".

Bob P.

1. I don't move my head, unless it is a very slight movement. I almost always track with my eyes. If my head is moving it usually means I am doing something wrong somewhere, or a simple case of anal-cranial inversion on my part (not true of everyone, but for me it is).

2. Most every batter is a different height. Why not make it easy and lock at the top of each batter's strike zone.

3. I'm damned consistent...a heckuva lot more than the baseball umpire I helped evaluate last night who was using GD (and not using it well).

4. I think the GD don right is an excellent baseball mechanic. But, IMHO, it is not right for fastpitch.

Well, I don't see being "locked in" as a good thing for any umpire. The strike zone consistantly changes as does the catcher's positioning.

There is no problem with moving one's head to track the ball. Worked well for me 40 years ago when I started doing baseball and still does in softball. Turning or moving the upper body would be another story.

I have used GD since learning of it, as I have a bad back, and this stance REALLY helps on the back.

However, it has come with a price in softball. And I believe AtlUmp has nailed it when he says the difference is due to the catcher being MUCH farther back in baseball. Essentially, the spot you stand (as compared to the plate) in baseball without GD and in softball WITH GD is nearly identical. There's no catcher in your way for the low outside pitch in baseball, plus the angle of the pitch makes it easier to track with GD than the angle of a softball pitch.

My zone at the lower outside is probably slightly worse with GD than it used to be.

I disagree with those that say there is more trouble calling the high strike with GD - I have simply not had that experience. I'd also say that my consistency in all but the lower outside corner has improved since switching.

Do you really don't think that not being 'locked in' prior to the pitch is a good thing? An umpire should be locked in and not moving at the time of the pitch.

I have never heard anyone say that it's okay to move your head when tracking the ball. Keep your head still and track the ball with your eyes is what I have always been told. If this is a softball thing I'll have to admit that I have very little experience but I do not see why it would be different than baseball.

Those of us who work the GD stance (properly) have no problem with the strike zone, regardless of the size of the batter or where F2 sets up. I have no problem with any portion of the zone, high/low or in/out. I have brought my GD stance with me as a fill-in HS softball umpire this season and while some comments have been made as to where I'm setting up no complaints have come from coaches or evaluators as to my strike zone and my consistency.

Of course in HS/college/adult baseball I see more and more umpires using the GD stance. But that’s a story for another forum :)

Link to info on GD Mechanics?
 

I have been out of baseball for many years and didn't hear about the GD system until recently. Does anyone have a link to reference materail on it? Thanks.

Here's one:

www.childress.officiating.com

When I say "locked in", I am referring to setting to a standard, "one-size fits all" stance.

What is wrong with moving your head to "track the ball"? That is some old-school thinking that I ignored in 1966 just as I do today. We're not talking about bobbing around behind the plate, but simply following the ball into the catcher's glove. Makes it much easier to determine if the ball was cleanly caught or not. Remember, in softball, the umpire is usually closer to the plate.

And that's fine, but IMO, the games are not the same, the equipment isn't the same and the player's mechanics are not the same, so why would you expect the umpire's mechanics to be the same?

Back when I was new to umpiring I would change my stance to fit each batter...results? Inconsistent strike zone. Now my stance changes only if the batter blocks part of my view by being too close to the plate or if F2 sets up blocking my inside view.

The mechanic of not moving your head isn't just a 1966 mechanic, it is also a 2006 mechanic. I never have to move my head to see the pitch all the way to F2's mitt. I'm not saying that I never get sloppy and let it happen but it is very rare.

I agree with you, the games are not exactly the same but they are very close. I have not found enought differences between the two games to alter my stance.

Bottom line is, it really doesn't matter what your stance is, what matters is your strike zone & consistency. If we all did things the same way we wouldn't be having all of this fun debating things here :)

GD can work for Softball. Great view !
Try it for a few games. 'Tain't illegal.
If you don't like the view, throw the stance away.

If you like using the catcher as "protection", you may not like GD, because you are more exposed.
To lower your initial set, for a short batter, spread your feet. It lowers your butt.
Being more upright allows more freedom of movement which gives a better break on a play and on getting away.
Knees, thighs and back take less abuse because of the emphasis on using the arms on thighs to reduce fatigue.

Caution:

• Thumbs in; hands relaxed.
• Do not take a pitch with your forearms in tension.

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/twocents.gif

mick

Good Points Mick!!!

What is wrong with moving your head to "track the ball"? Tell me what happens if you try to take a picture while the camera is moving. Unless all the blurriness and lack of focus is a good thing!!!

Bob P.

You get a nice, clear, sharp picture if the object you are phtographing is also moving and the camera is tracking the object.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/..._daimlerch.jpg

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/..._s_town_30.jpg


But, if the object is moving and the camera is still? Blurr! (note orange car)

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/...s_town_300.jpg

What your photos fail to show is an object (the batter) standing still and the camera having to take a clear pitcture of both at the same time as the ball passes through the strike zone.

If you set your camera up to watch an object coming straight at you and suddenly at the last second you move your camera what happens to the still object (batter)?

Where were you taught to move your head in order to follow the ball?

Actually, what I was trying to show was the comparison between a camera and a human eye / brain combo is bogus.

Every other human endeavor that involves tracking a moving object with the eye does not get so silly as to suggest that the best way is to move your eyeballs only and keep your head rigid. If there ever was an advantage to this teaching, the advantage was small compared to the cost - the inability to actually see the ball clearly all the way to the glove from as close to the plate as a SB umpire typically is.

So are you saying that it is better to move your head when tracking a softball because the softball umpire is closer to the plate than a baseball umpire? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Baseball (and the one softball clinic I attended) teaches you to track the ball with your eyes and not to move your head, which I do. This is my first season to do high school softball but I have found that using my eyes to track the softball is no different than tracking a baseball.

And what do you do when the ball is low in the dirt or high over the catcher?

The "moving camera" analogy is bogus as it relates to a pitched ball. If you are in a proper stance, there is no need to move the head to track until the ball has already entered/missed the strike zone. That is assuming you have a good view of the strike zone and not using the location of the catcher's glove to make the call :rolleyes:

A) Of the few things I remember from scouting and military training is that when searching for a moving object, keep your eyes/head still and when searching for a stationary object, move your eyes/head. I'm sure some will say this does not apply, but it does in concept and physics.
B) Another thing learned above is to set your position and hold it.
C) My best results come from a consistent position in the slot, dropping to the top of that batter's strike zone so I'm stationary before the pitch arrives, focusing only on that batter's strike zone and calling the pitch after it arrives without regard to what the catcher does or doesn't do.

What do I do when the ball is low in the dirt or high over the catcher? I call the pitch a ball (unless the batter swings), what do you do? I can see the ball go low in the dirt & high above F2 without moving my head, can't you?

When the pitch is good I track it, with my eyes, all the way into F2's mitt, how do you do it? Do you stop tracking the ball as soon as it crosses the plate & make your call? I personally like to wait until a couple of seconds after I see the ball reach F2's mitt before I make my call.

Do you track the ball with your eyes then as it crosses the plate you start moving your head to track the ball?

Please explain your plate mechanics to me, I am always interested in learning different ways of working the plate. IMHO (and maybe the opinion of a few others) there is no need to move your head to track the the ball!

This whole head movement thing "came to a head" for me recently, at my (baseball) associations annual field clinic last month. I mentioned this in the previous "Gerry Davis" thread here a few weeks ago.

Part of the clinic had us being videotaped in a batting cage, then our tapes were critiqued by senior members. Upon viewing my tape, on some pitches, most notably on those pitches well out of the strike zone, you could see a slight head movement right at the end.

To be clear, I am not moving my head to follow the entire pitch, from pitchers hand to catcher's mitt. I am well-set and still as the ball reaches the plate. But as a pitch tails away from the zone, it tends to go toward the outer edges of our peripheral vision.

In the other thread, I believe that it was Steve who described this as "pointing your nose at the ball". He also offered the analogy of Pete Rose making a similar head adjustment as a ball came across the plate. That seemed a good description of the ever-so-slight adjustment I was making- pointing my nose at the ball to keep it in my field of vision.

Of course, the instructor jumped all over this. I got the same "camera analogy" and this was treated as some kind of fatal flaw.

Since the clinic, I have watched twenty-or-so pro baseball games on television. Nowadays, when I watch a game I probably watch the umpires as much as I do the players! With this criticism still on my mind, I noted that almost every umpire I've observed on television makes this same small adjustment to some degree when pitches are out of the strike zone. For balls right over the plate, there is zero head movement. But if the ball is off the plate, you will almost always see some small head movement.

Mike makes a point about balls that are in the dirt or over the catcher's head. I see this tiny head movement as being most noticable on low, outside pitches. We are already set up in the slot, so inside pitches are generally right at us.

Think about the geometry involved. Imagine a straight line from the pitcher's hand at the release point that extends to the umpires nose. If a ball is 12" off this line near the pitcher, it is still well within our filed of vision. Indeed, we can likely see this ball at most any point along that line without moving our head.

Now, imagine the same line and a ball 12" off of it at your nose. This ball would be almost totally out of your peripheral vision. You would have to turn to see it.

The head turning I have observed is a small adjustment and it takes place in the last few feet of the pitch, after it has crossed the plate and in the short distance to the catcher's mitt. It is absent in pitches over the plate, or close to it, and most noticable on pitches well out of the strike zone.

For those that say they never move their head, if you are videotaped on a variety of pitches, I am willing to bet that there will be some pitches off the plate where you have some head movement. This seems to be an unconcious action as a ball goes to the outer edges of our field of vision.

Is there a possible U3K? If so, you better know if the catcher caught the ball. Is there the possibility the catcher is about ready to move to chase a missed ball? If the catcher misses it, could it be at your feet and you need to evacuate the area without kicking the ball? These are all possibilities and I'd rather have an inkling that I need to move before "feeling" the catcher move.

If you set up looking toward the pitcher, how are you going to be aware of any of this unless you move your head? If you can see it without moving your head, you are so far behind the catcher. In softball, if that's where you are, you are too far back.

You didn't answer all of my questions but that's okay.

Maybe I'm 'special' because I have no problem telling when the ball gets past the catcher and I have no problem moving out of her way. I just step to the side and open up, this allows F2 room to chase the ball. Of course by this time not only am I moving my head but every other part of me as well :)

But I still haven't heard a good reason to move your head rather than follow the ball to the F2 with your eyes.

Maybe you should try reading... how about out of your peripheral vision?

An umpire (IMO) who claims he can use the GD stance with a batter at the front of the box, and hence the catcher moving up to right behind the plate, and still see the entire plate, the ball crossing the plate (esp low) and the ball enter the catcher's glove without moving his head is, let's just say, not very self-aware.

Either that, or he doesn't care about calls at the plate beyond ball and strike (such as D3K). After all, the the batter swings (up in the box, before the ball crosses the plate) and the ball dives into the dirt, how do you know if the catcher caught or trapped the ball?

Or maybe you are calling the zone next to the batter instead of over the plate.

I don't care what stance you use; as I said, I was pointing out that the "camera" analogy was bogus. It is more important to keep the object you are trying to track in your field of view than it is to worry about slight head movement.

My peripheral vision is great but it sounds like you might need to have yours checked if you're saying that you lose the ball that goes across the plate. Wait, don't get mad....

I guess that this statement is coming from an expert in the GD Stance? It's working great for me. Not a single strike zone complaint in my short softball career. Maybe softball coaches are just easy going. When F2 moves forward I move forward. I have always liked it when F2 setups close to the plate.

I watch the ball, even after the batter swings, especially when she is in the front part of the box. I can see if F2 catches the ball or not, maybe it's Justme :)

I was told that I can't do that in softball, fun to do in baseball though :D

Slight head movement????? As in turning it to one side or going from straight ahead to looking down?

After the pitch reaches the catcher's mitt then I move. I'm up and indicating strike (assuming for the sake of this post that it's a strike). If the ball was trapped I see it. A really good sign is that F2's mitt is turned down and I see that when the ball arrives.

Maybe I just haven't yet had right situation to change my beliefs. Until then I refuse to go over to the dark side :D

I'm not trying to convince you of anything JM. Do what you want. You're set in your (erroneous) beliefs.

However, remember your high school geometry?

How deep is the plate?
How tall is your typical SB catcher when in the crouch?
Now, imaging this catcher jam up behind the plate.
How tall do you have to be to see the entire plate while in your stance 3,4,+ (whatever variation you use) feet behind the catcher?

One of two things... if you think you can see the entire plate,

You aren't really using the GD stance, or
You are kidding yourself (don't get mad).

...losing a pitch in front of a catcher.
 

Tom,
I use the GD system and I do not disagree with anything you are saying about the low outside pitch, but that disappearing [in front of the catcher's right shoulder] pitch can still be called because it is extemely easy to see the path of the pitch.
The front outside of the plate is very visible, because part of the system is that I sit up higher than chin-to-top-of-helmet behind the catcher. And eventhough, as you profess and as I agree, the outside back of the plate can be partially hidden, I do know where that corner is, cuz it ain't movin'.

But what I may lose on that back corner [and I still have a 50-50 chance of gettin' it right ;) ] I feel that I have a much better command of all the other pitches in my outside zone. By watching the ball from the pitcher's hand to that back outside corner, it is effortless to determine where the pitch entered the zone and to interpolate the track of the ball.

Backing off the catcher never made much to me sense either. Again, I agree, you lose more of the plate than if you are up close, but as I back up, I sit a little higher and I get a longer [time] track of the pitch in return for seeing less plate. But again, the plate hasn't moved and strike zone remains clear.

The less fatigue thing is huge! Often, I would have to really mentally bare down in the 4th-6th inning, before the excitement of the 7th got my juices flowing for increased concentration. With that more upright stance and better look, a lot less energy (mental and physical) is consumed and the sharper I am in the last half.

2-3 years ago, I was really, really comfortable in the slot, but I felt I was losing [thus guessing] too many outside pitches, so I experimented. The "new" system, for me, is almost like sitting in an armchair and watching the balls and strikes on a TV screen.

It suits me. And like I said before, ..."great view!"
mick

I've now had the chance to experiment with the GD stance in several baseball games- won't be doing any fastpitch softball for a few more weeks- and will agree 100% with the reduced fatigue factor.

What the Gerry Davis stance really reminds me of is that illustration shown in the back of the ASA "Umpire Edition" rule book that demonstrates the correct stance for slow pitch softball!

Dakota;

I do not get mad, I enjoy the banter....hearing other umpires opinions is helpful, regardless of whether or not it's accurate ;)

I have found that softball umpires tend not to like the GD stance while it is becoming more widely used in baseball, especially by us ‘older’ umpires. My knees just won’t hold up for a long game using the more traditional stances and I’ve tried them all over the years.

I guess that I have used the GD stance so much that I know longer have the limitations that you mentioned, or I have learned to work around them. I can see where if the catcher crowded over the plate it would be difficult to see the outside corner but I still have a good visual (in my mind) of where it is. Like Mick says “the plate doesn’t move.”

The overall view of the strike zone that is afforded by the GD stance far outweighs, IMHO, any of the ‘faults’ that are said to the associated with it. As I’m sure you know, this stance, like anything you try new, needs to be learned properly (not just by reading about it) and practiced.

Mick,

If you were in the slot and not seeing the outside pitches, is it possible you were not set up in a heel-toe, toe-heel position?

Brett,

The book illustration exaggerates the FP set position. The ASA stance is basically the same for both games, just that you may need to drop a little lower to see a higher pitch in the SP game come through the strike zone.

Now, some you FP only guys are probably thinking how ridiculous, you don't drop to a set position for SP. Well, yeah, you do and be a better umpire for it.

No, but the batter, ball and catcher do and not necessarily after the ball passes the plate. The ball is the primary focal point. You cannot have a call without the ball. Which, IMO, means the umpire needs to know where that ball is all the time, not just when it approaches the plate. And if someone believes that is 100% attainable without moving one's head to track the ball, more power to you 'cause I don't think it is possible to do that and have full view of the strike zone.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">2-3 years ago, I was really, really comfortable in the slot, but I felt I was losing [thus guessing] too many outside pitches, so I experimented. The "new" system, for me, is almost like sitting in an armchair and watching the balls and strikes on a TV screen. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Hi Mike,
I felt that I was seeing the pitches just great! I could see the pop into the mitt.
I was in tight and up close... just shy of personal.

What I was uncomfortable with was the pitch location on the edge of my outside zone, particularly the letter high, breaking-away ball, but generally all the strikes in my outside zone.

By setting higher and deeper, that outside zone opened-up for me, in large part because my nose [now lined up with the inside edge of the plate, regardless of the catcher] was easily 6" closer to the outside zone, and I could clearly see the pitcher's release (to track the ball) without any visual blocking by a wiggly batter or antsy catcher.

mick