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

Ok,

I read this and cannot find it. It was in Referee Magazine in 04 or 05.

I think it was a college guy that wrote it.

He said he was experimenting with the BU coming behind the pitcher with a single runner on third and(I think) with two outs.

First, can anyone help me find the article, second-what do you think of the idea?

Joe In Michigan

Wouldn't put much value in the mechanic at any level in any game.

What would be the negatives?

Becoming a target in the biggest hole in an infield, getting turned around on a ball up the middle (BU always has 1st play in the infield), ending up in the middle of a play, being hit by a batted ball prior to it passing a fielder, not being in a position to go out on a possible catch/no catch scenario are a few that come to mind.

Oh, is that all! :D

Also, visually screening middle infielders, distracting the pitcher, making ot more difficult to get outside the runner if 3rd-HP becomes a rundown, etc.

I will use this mechanic at 10U only. At 12U, 14U, JV, or V, all of the problems Mike mentioned become significant, and the advantages you gain by moving inside nearly disappear.

At the levels where stealing home is not a possibility though, the need to be near third base decreases substantially. Also, at those levels, F4 and F6 will likely be in front of me, even if I'm inside. And it gets you much closer to the 20 times more likely play at first base.

I've seen occasional umpires go all the way back to A at 8U or 10U with R3 only. I don't like this because while the need to be near third is LESS, it is not ZERO - and you can be caught WAY out of position on that rare ball where you do need to be near 3rd.

Food for thought
 

As soon as I can find this article, I will post it for everyone to see. I cannot see any reason why I the BU would get "turned around".


Not if you are paying attention.

I work both baseball and softball...I have not been hit in baseball(even at the U13/14 level where the pitching plate is a lot closer) and the baseball can and does come at you a lot harder.


I have not seen a mechanic that allows for the BU to go out with runners on. However, my position(behind the pitching circle) wouldput me in a MUCH better position for helping on a catch/no catch scenario as I could help in more of the outfield.

As for the play at first, you have to admit that your view would be better. The snap throw back to third? Better angle, as well. There ARE posiitives to this position-there may be negatives, as well...but most of the ones that I hear don't seem to be very well thought out.

Your pal,

Joe In Michigan

If the fielders are playing at normal depth, then they are farther from the plate than you. So you either have your back to first base, or your back to the fielder. There is no way too keep both of them in your vision. So you are turning one way to watch the fielding of the ball, moving backward toward first base to get closer, and then turning 180 degrees as the ball is thrown to watch the play at first.

Pay attention all you want. You are still "in the middle of things" if ball is hit to shortstop, and in the way if the ball is hit up the middle - having to dodge before getting yourself into position.

So do I. Perhaps you noticed the difference in the size of the diamonds? THIS is the reason that being inside is normally a bad mechanic in softball, but can be workable in baseball. You might notice that in your baseball mechanics manuals, they do not recommend working inside on a 60' baseball diamond either. Same reasons as softball.

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.

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

Assumption
 

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

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?

My thoughts, exactly, every time I read one of Mike's posts! :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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