rusty

[bluezebra58]

Thanks.Fed ball is what I work.When you say follow my nose do you mean without turning my head?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by bluezebra58

Thanks.Fed ball is what I work.When you say follow my nose do you mean without turning my head?

Bob,
When tracking by pointing your nose at the ball, you are supposed to move your head. You should not have to move your nose more than 1 inch, so the head movement is not dramatic. But it is a dramatic thought/approach change. Where you'll really notice a big benefit is on the low outside pitch.

btw, I always thought you'd retired from the day job when you went out to the land of fruits & nuts.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Bob,
When tracking by pointing your nose at the ball, you are supposed to move your head. You should not have to move your nose more than 1 inch, so the head movement is not dramatic. But it is a dramatic thought/approach change. Where you'll really notice a big benefit is on the low outside pitch.

btw, I always thought you'd retired from the day job when you went out to the land of fruits & nuts.

Steve,

Bob is "bluezebra." The OP in this thread is "bluezebra58"

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Steve,

Bob is "bluezebra." The OP in this thread is "bluezebra58"

OOOOOOOOOOOOOps

[AtlUmpSteve]

Tracking with your nose does require some head turn in the last few feet of an outside pitch, assuming you are up tight to the catcher. I teach it by reminding (at least the older generation) of Pete Rose watching a pitch all the way into the catcher's mitt. Similarly, we attempt to track all the way into the mitt; even though the strike zone may have been passed earlier in the pitch, the track to the mitt allows better timing on your call, less distraction by the swing, and a more definite focus on a drop/short hop by the catcher.

By locking the eyes and making a minor head movement, you more accurately reflect the same focus mechanism of a video camera. Consider the autofocus on a video camera lens, attempting to follow the ball from pitcher's hand to the glove, then, after hit, following the ball as it moves around the field. Any camera operator would certainly note that the camera stays more focused, with less work, when the operator attempts to keep the ball in the middle of the frame, and moves with the ball. If the camera stays locked in place, the autofocus churns to keep up, and the focus is rarely as sharp. If the camera overcompensates, and moves too quickly, or beyond the location of the ball, the focus mechanism churns to work, and is not as sharp.

So it is with our eyes. The older (and still baseball technique) of locking the head and moving only the eyes recognizes the problem of moving too quickly, or overadjusting; while it resolves half the possible issues, the philosophy comes from a time before we could use the example of a camera with autofocus. And, it is somewhat based on a much deeper baseball catcher (and thus umpire) position relative to the strike zone at home plate, whereas the typical fastpich catcher often catches the ball just behind the zone. By pointing your nose on the ball, and attempting to keep the ball there as it moves, you minimize your movements, maximize your focus, and best utilize your depth perception.

That is the concept I learned from the first (to my knowledge) ASA plate guru, Tony Walsh, followed by Billy Peterson and then Jim Craig; and that is what the ASA NUS has preached since. If there is a movement afoot to change that concept, I would hate to understand what basis they might have to justify the physical issues. As we have discussed in other threads, there are certain staff members (newer ones, mostly) who are teaching whatever mechanic they personally prefer, and asserting that is THE ASA position.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I teach it by reminding (at least the older generation) of Pete Rose watching a pitch all the way into the catcher's mitt.

But did you ever notice where Pete's eyes went from the mitt? Right to the umpire's face. Nothing like trying to intimidate the umpire. He did the same thing in softball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But did you ever notice where Pete's eyes went from the mitt? Right to the umpire's face. Nothing like trying to intimidate the umpire. He did the same thing in softball.

I also saw where, if he respected the call, he nodded his head at the umpire, then turned back for the next pitch.

Could be intimidation; could be judging your zone for himself, then making the necessary adjustment when required.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I also saw where, if he respected the call, he nodded his head at the umpire, then turned back for the next pitch.

Could be intimidation; could be judging your zone for himself, then making the necessary adjustment when required.

I've had the privilege (note: see tongue in cheek) of running into Mr. Rose on the ballfield and a few times at the track (horse, not car), or should I say, he ran into me.

I am quite confident the look to the mitt was being a good ballplayer. But the look to the umpire........

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've had the privilege (note: see tongue in cheek) of running into Mr. Rose on the ballfield and a few times at the track (horse, not car), or should I say, he ran into me.

I am quite confident the look to the mitt was being a good ballplayer. But the look to the umpire........

I use to umpire slow pitch at Wright Patterson AFA, Oh. Pete was on a team there. Got the look then too.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

I use to umpire slow pitch at Wright Patterson AFA, Oh. Pete was on a team there. Got the look then too.

WOW !!! I didn't think AFA was big enough to have there own Air Force base!!!

Should I assume WP includes a federal penitentiary?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But did you ever notice where Pete's eyes went from the mitt? Right to the umpire's face. Nothing like trying to intimidate the umpire. He did the same thing in softball.

I never heard anyone describe him as humble.

[NDblue]

And he should be in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame. I don't care what he did off the field, his on-field accomplishments alone warrant him being in the HOF. His problems came when he was a coach/manager not as a player.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NDblue

And he should be in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame. I don't care what he did off the field, his on-field accomplishments alone warrant him being in the HOF. His problems came when he was a coach/manager not as a player.

As much as I do not care for Pete Rose, the person, I agree that his accomplishments on the field should have merited entrance into Cooperstown.

However, you need to remember the upstanding moral fiber of those who have a vote. Individuals who will embellish the negative in anyone's life if it means getting a lead story or a headline. People who will twist fact with fiction if it means a bonus check for the month.

When someone reminds them of what their work is doing to people, teams, leagues and the sport, those pilar-of-the-community correspondents insist they are "just doing my job".

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by NDblue

And he should be in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame. I don't care what he did off the field, his on-field accomplishments alone warrant him being in the HOF. His problems came when he was a coach/manager not as a player.

I totally agree. What he accomplished was amazing....

[Skahtboi]

Then I will be the dissenter in the turn this conversation has taken. Pete Rose was a member of Major League Baseball when he bet on games. Being a part of a game, as a manager, means that he can influence the outcomes. That action alone is worth his permanent ban from baseball. There is absolutely no proof that Buck Weaver ever bet on a game, or even participated in throwing a game, but he is banned forever from baseball simply because he was roomates with one of the Black Sox participants. Rose, on the other hand, knew what he was doing and that it violated the ethics of MLB.