Referee Mag Article-BU Inside Infield w/ Runner on 3rd Only

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Yes, there are positives. But the negatives outweigh them, and are very real if you've tried this in a game of significant level. I suggest you work a scrimmage or three with this mechanic (at a level higher than 10U) and you'll probably find you agree with Mike and I.

This is one of those threads were someone has decided his way is better, and has only asked the question to get corroboration, not to listen to the answers. I bet he keeps using his way, because he is sure he knows more than generations of baseball and softball umpires about working inside a 60' diamond.

[BuggBob]

The mechanic for two umpires in slow [itch USSSA put the BU inside, but our UIC for slow pitch USSSA had us move to the outside because of the danger of being creamed by the batted ball, interfering with the throw from short, and being too close to a play at second. When we were inside you would actually hide behind the pitcher and get as close to second as possible (further from the batted ball). With runners on 2nd you would block their view of the pitch and hit and even possibly be in their way when they would run. I think inside works in baseball, but not in softball.

Bugg

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

This is one of those threads were someone has decided his way is better, and has only asked the question to get corroboration, not to listen to the answers. I bet he keeps using his way, because he is sure he knows more than generations of baseball and softball umpires about working inside a 60' diamond.

What a giant leap you are taking, there Steve. I should have waited until I got the article it before I posted my opinion. The writer is a better communicator than I am.

First of all, you assume that I AM using this way. I have used it a few times in JV ball, not varsity.

You assume that I am sure it is the best. I am not sure it is best.

It seems that a lot of umpires refuse to even consider anything different or new. Generations of baseball umpires got very close to calls at first and usually in foul territory. Just because it has been done one way for a very long time does not make it the best way.

Why can't we have a discussion without people getting surly and insulting?

Trying to call good,

Joe In Michigan

[AtlUmpSteve]

I responded solely on the basis of your responses. You asked, were given 5 immediate negatives. No umpiring sanction, baseball or softball, recommends what you propose for a 60' infield (FYI, even USSSA doesn't use this in a 60' infield, only 65' slowpitch with infielders playing at 80' +), but your response is "there may be negatives, as well...but most of the ones that I hear don't seem to be very well thought out."

In fact, they have been thought out over and over again. Almost every new alphabet soup sanction that springs up want to be different in some way, to be distinctive. Yet, no one has agreed or made that suggestion an approved mechanic. Care to guess why?

You infer that I was getting surly and insulting. In fact, your initial responses disagreeing with every negative stated made set the tone for thread. You insist it is good, despite overwhelming experience and reasons why it isn't. Now who is surly and insulting?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

It seems that a lot of umpires refuse to even consider anything different or new. Generations of baseball umpires got very close to calls at first and usually in foul territory. Just because it has been done one way for a very long time does not make it the best way.

Why can't we have a discussion without people getting surly and insulting?

Trying to call good,

Joe In Michigan

And yet, you immediately dismissed my responses out of hand. Are you Mr. Pot or Mr. Kettle?

I've worked baseball (22 years). This is my 40th year of umpiring and I've tried quite a few things whether they were in the manual or not.

Personally, from your responses, I have to give Steve's opinion some weight. What makes you think just because you "found" something, that others haven't already been there, done that and are responding to your post with viable experiences? EXPERIENCES, not opinion.

Steve and I teach mechanics. We've learned from some of the best in ASA, and on ocassion, NCAA. What you suggested has been tried, often. It does not work on the small diamond.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

First of all, you assume that I AM using this way. I have used it a few times in JV ball, not varsity. You assume that I am sure it is the best. I am not sure it is best.

Now who is assuming? I assumed nothing of the sort - but simply was offering my advice from the point of view of actually trying out this mechanic.

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

It seems that a lot of umpires refuse to even consider anything different or new. Generations of baseball umpires got very close to calls at first and usually in foul territory. Just because it has been done one way for a very long time does not make it the best way.

True, but generally, in a profession with over 100 years of experience behind it, just about everything has been tried. There are things that change over time, and usually with a reason, and based on actual usage and experience. This mechanic has been used and discarded for the reasons stated above.

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Why can't we have a discussion without people getting surly and insulting?

Who got surly or insulting? I see nothing surly or insulting. If you find that you cannot digest disagreement with your POV, you will find EVERYONE to be surly and insulting... and then we will actually become surly and insulting.

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Trying to call good,

Try to call WELL. The only one that should be calling 'good' is the backjudge under the fieldgoal, and Marv Albert.

[CecilOne]

I think we're getting a little testy around here and need to get back to more gentility.

[jwwashburn]

Have any of the people jumping to the conclusion that I am a moron ever considered this mechanic before this thread or, TRIED it out?

Did anyone else see the article?

Again, as I have said, I am not certain it is a better mechanic.

I am certain that I read about it in referee Magazine and I find it worth consideration and discussion.

I am certain that, in person, most umpires I have asked about this also seem to dismiss it without consideration. I am talking about respectful questions with completely dismissive answers-often with less than a hearbeat to respond.

If you look up above, only one poster found any possible positives with this mechanic.

If anything I posted offended anyone, it was not intentional. I was trying to have an actual discussion about this idea. I have about 6 years experience in FP Softball...a LOT less than a lot of the posters here. I learn a lot from a lot of more experienced guys that I have worked with. I am sorry if I gave off an impression that I am not willing to LEARN...Good Grief---If I didn't want to learn, why would I subscribe to Referee and come here?

I am trying to call GOOD because that is what Papa C said in one of his videos.

Joe In Michigan

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Have any of the people jumping to the conclusion that I am a moron...

Up until this post, I think we were giving you the benefit of the doubt, and just considering that perhaps you were inexperienced, and not a moron. But dude, if the shoe fits...

ever considered this mechanic before this thread or, TRIED it out?

Um... did you bother to read the posts? Or did you just notice that they disagreed with you, and stop reading. I see at least THREE posts disagreeing with this mechanic that specifically mention actually USING this mechanic, and finding it to be faulty and problematic (and even describing ACTUAL problems encountered when it was tried.).

Again, as I have said, I am not certain it is a better mechanic.

So... three people have tried it, and tell you it's not better... Three people tell you WHY it's not better, and after you denigrate those reasons, supply supporting descriptions as to why those reasons are valid. And then you, who is not certain it's better, decide that the people that have actually TRIED this are the problem?!?!?!

I am certain that I read about it in referee Magazine and I find it worth consideration and discussion.

That's what we were doing. Discussing our experiences with it after we considered it and tried it. What more do you want?

I am certain that, in person, most umpires I have asked about this also seem to dismiss it without consideration.

Without consideration? Can you read?

I am talking about respectful questions with completely dismissive answers-often with less than a hearbeat to respond.

The answers were dismissive because we've tried this. We responded quickly because it really didn't take much thought, after giving it a go. You would agree if you were speaking from ANY sort of experience with this at all... but lacking that experience with this mechanic, why do you stubbornly insist that everyone else is wrong. Why bother posting if you aren't going to listen to the input given you. We all posted in good faith, trying to help you understand why this mechanic poses problems (Heck, I even specified a small case where the mechanic DOES work, in my opinion). Yet you, again - with NO basis for disagreement - have such a huge problem taking the input, and ascribe attitudes toward those who tried to help you. Well... there's a last time for everything.

I was trying to have an actual discussion about this idea.

So were we.

If I didn't want to learn, why would I subscribe to Referee and come here?

That, sir, is an EXCELLENT question. One I'm wondering about myself. If one truly wants to learn, one should not simply disregard any contrary opinions as balderdash, especially when one lacks any true basis for such opinions through their own experience. Mike told you specifically what can be wrong with this mechanic, and your immediate response implied that he must not be paying attention if he had that problem with the mechanic... yet you've never actually tried it.

This reminds me of numerous discussions with my 6 year old daughter. "That's yucky." No it's not, you should try it. "No, I just know it's yucky." How can you know it's yucky if you won't try it. "I just know." ad infinitum.

[jwwashburn]

Mcrowder,

I went back and read all of the posts. I can't see anyone other than you that has used this mechanic.

As I said, I HAVE used the mechanic. I went back and read my notes. I used the mechanic in 6 JV Double Headers and two Varsity games(I had forgotten, about the Varsity games) and in a handful of U14, U16 and U18 games.

To further address Mr. Mafia's points, from my personal experience:

1) I never got "turned around" on a ball up the middle. Maybe I am not understanding what he meant by this, but I cannot remember any circumstances where this happened. Maybe it could be explained more clearly and I might better understand this one.

2) Ending up in the middle of a play. I can see how this could happen but, it may not have to be a problem. If the infield is in, you could stay behind them, if they are back, you could be closer to second base than the circle. I am not certain that this would solve the problem. I think it could work. I did not find myself in the middle of any plays.

3) How often have any of us been hit by a batted ball in baseball? It has not ever happened to me in 12+ years-I have ahd a few close calls. On a regular baseball diamond, the BU is usually approx 70 ft away? If you employed this mechanic, you could be about the same distance away-if not even farther. Do I remember Geometry Class? the diaganol of a square is the Square Root of 2 x one side...Almost 85 feet from home plate to second base. Why would this be a problem?

4) His last point: "not being in a position to go out on a possible catch/no catch scenario" Is there a mechanic that sends you "out" with a runner on base? Am I missing something here? I think your position for seeing catch/no catch would be at least as good, if not better.

Joe In Michigan

PS I talked to Referee Magazine today, the guy said he thought he could get the article to me. Also, he said that they are finally working on putting archives on their web page!