rusty
 

Because of my job I had to take a couple years off of umpping.When I left I was having a few problems with blinking or moving on pitches when I was on the plate.Any advice on that or changes the last two years.Thanks.

There have been quite a few rule changes over the past couple of years. Which ruleset are you primarily calling? If you are referring to mechanics changes, I would suggest attending a regional/state/national clinic to get brought up to date on those.

As for your blinking, do you notice any specific times when you do it, or is it on almost every pitch? Do you track the ball with your nose(though I understand that ASA is now crawfishing on that mechanic, and saying track with your eyes) from the pitcher's hand all the way to the catcher's glove? If not, give that a try. It will also help you be much more consistent in setting your strike zone. Another thing that may help you in focusing, thus reducing the blink instinct, is while tracking the ball, see if you can pick up the spin as a batter would and then follow the ball all the way to the catcher's glove. It is amazing how much that little "tweek" in concentration can eliminate some of the problems. Often, the blink reflex kicks in when were are not totally focused on the incoming pitch, but are distracted by other things such as the last minute move by the catcher, the batter squaring to bunt...etc.

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.

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.

Steve,

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

OOOOOOOOOOOOOps

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.

:eek:

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........

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

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

Should I assume WP includes a federal penitentiary?

I think Pete's time in the fed prison system was up here - at Allenwood.
One of our local umps - before he got transferred - was the warden or asst warden.

:eek:
OOOOps, since I do mostly AFA, guess it was on my mind, well in my fingers.

I never heard anyone describe him as humble. :rolleyes:

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".

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

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.

Did you get this from a list of oxymorons?

Ummm....er....yeah. The same one that has Senate Ethics Committee, Army Intelligence, and Vegitarian Chili on it! :D

Okay, he bet on baseball. SO WHAT?

As far as I'm concerned, everyone in the game should be required to bet on their own team. It should be part of the salary structure. The fact that a team's performance is not a major part of it, IMO, helped ruin the game of baseball.

Like I said, I'm not a Rose fan. Have had at least two face-to-face disagreements with him at the race track and he jumped on me because Michael Bolton wanted to play the game by his own rules in a softball game. IMO, he has zero class off the field and is an egotistical ******* who is his own worst enemy.

However, even those who would like to see him banned from ever walking within a mile of any baseball field acknowledge that there is no evidence he ever bet against a team or player over which he had any type of influence.

The man deserves his due and because you have all these "moral" baseball writers it will not happen until after his death. And, as big a sonofa***** he is, he deserves to be in the baseball HOF.

So....does that mean that Joe Jackson and Chick Gandel et al, should be reinstated to baseball so that Joe can be in the HOF? His career numbers and his performance, even during the Black Sox alleged throwing of the 1919 Series would warrant a HOF induction, and he wasn't even allowed to complete his career. And Joe was supposedly a really nice, and humble guy. Being a ******* doesn't keep one out of the HOF, case in point Tyrus R Cobb. However, being a stupid *******, like Pete Rose, by the tenets of Commissioners of the game, does.

There was nothing alleged about it. There was also nothing particularly unique about it either considered in light of the whole of MLB at the time.

If Barry Bonds gets into the Hall, there is no reason other than pure stubbornness on the part of the pretend commissioner to keep Rose out.

How do you figure? By what yardstick are you measuring my use of the term "alleged?" In a court of law, all "conspirators" were found to be not guilty on all counts, including conspiracy to commit a confidence game. The presiding judge even complimented the jury for what he felt to be a "just verdict" after all evidence and testimony had been given. At that time, and to his death, Buck Weaver denied any knowledge of a fix, and certainly any involvement, and continued to petition MLB to reinstate him.

Though there are rumors of fixes throughout the history of baseball, none have been proved. I am sure that there were a lot of shady dealings in earlier 20th century baseball, though, considering the poor pay, the existence of the reserve clause, and the way many owners treated ballplayers in general.

However, one person presided over the fate of the Chicago 8, and that was Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the newly appointed commissioner of MLB. Regardless of the finding of a court of law, Landis chose to ban the players for life.

Pretty much the same fate that Pete Rose faced, except that Rose chose to be put on the ineligible list if baseball ceased investigating the matter, and to prevent further legal investigation. (Sounds to me as though he had/has something to hide.) Of course, the caveat to that was that after one year he could begin to petition MLB for reinstatement, which he has done, and which has subsequently been denied.

I don't agree. MLB baseball, against the advice of many, did not choose to ban "performance enhancing" substances until after the 2002 season. Therefore, for the majority of their careers, Bonds, Palmiero, Sosa, McGwire, and anyone else engaged in these practices were not violating any code of baseball, unless they continued to do so in any season 2003-2006. So, why should their legal accomplishments lead to them being banned from the HOF?

Of course, I don't really believe that any of them will ever see the hall, because of the subsequent Balco scandal and the prevailing attitude of the nation regarding the taking anything of a performance enhancing nature.

That's called managing your business. No different than discharging, firing, however you would like to refer as termination of any other employee.

"Legal" investigation? How are you using the term "legal"? MLB can only leverage what they have. The ONLY thing baseball could have done is what they did.

Another joke, IMO. These alleged enhancement substances do not enhance performance, they enhance the bodies development. What people take exception to is the results, or by-products of that development.

:cool:

Correct. Which is what happened to Pete Rose as well.



Sorry. Should have read "criminal."


Won't get me to argue that one at all. However, MLB did argue their merit, albeit silently, by not doing anything about them long after every other sport had outlawed their use.

I wasn't referring to whether all persons banned deserved to be banned, but whether the fix was in on the 1919 series. It was, no doubt, no need to use words like "alleged"... unless, of course, you are considering the various confessions, including that of Shoeless Joe, to be invalid.

The court only addressed what was illegal and whether the prosecution proved a crime (or, considering it was a jury verdict), whether the jury felt the guilty verdict was "just" considering the way players were treated and all the rest. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as a finding of innocence. Just ask the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

No matter how you weasle it, Bonds and his ilk do not deserve HOF entry, IMO.

In my personal opinion, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, there is no ignoring the fact that MLB offcially turned a blind eye to performance enhancers for many, many years, thereby legitimizing, at least in the players minds, the use of such products. Therefore, the argument can be put forth by anyone desiring to play DA, that the achievements of these players should merit their induction.

It is not a hard and fast, black and white issue like that which faced the Black Sox, William Cox, or Pete Rose. (Well...since 2002 it has been, but not before.)

Even Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb were suspected of possible game fixing and gambling, though nothing was ever proved in their case. Had it been and you can rest assured that the original class inducted into the HOF would have looked somewhat different.

Until lawyers and players found they could find judges who were willing to stick their noses where they didn't belong, baseball was operated as a private entity/business with employees. Until the Curt Flood case, the only time the government and baseball got together was to set and monitor the anti-trust exemption (which if MLB was smart, should have been dumped a long time ago). Do not confuse that statement with saying there were no legal or criminal matters to address, because obviously there were.

And as far as the drug issue, you cannot completely blame MLB. The owners had actually voiced opinions against their use for years, but it was the player's union which made the point a labor issue and we all know that EVERYTHING barring a violation of law, is negotiable.

Personally, I would love to see MLB go under. If there is anyone in this country that cannot live without MLB, they are the ones who need to be in a hospital/rehab facility. I know there are others who are equally tired of hearing the owners and players whine and cry about everything including not making enough money and want more while the overall skill level of the players decline.

Almost like dealing with SP players.

So, by extension, you would like to see slow pitch go under, too? ;)

"Overall skill levels" declining? Depends on what you mean by "overall". Certainly, with the large number of teams, the average MLB player is less skilled than the average player would be with fewer teams, but, the top players are just as highly skilled as the top players were decades ago.

My objection to the steriods is not legal; it is more that they are a violation of the game. Let me explain. Baseball, whether accidentally or by brilliant design, is probably the most well-balanced game ever invented. The balance between offense and defense, the layout of the infield relative to human athletic ability, etc., means that it may well be the only sport where statistics can be meaningfully compared across the decades. Steriods disrupted the balance especially in the home run statistics. None of the home run records from the McGuire / Sosa season forward can be put in the same record book as those from Maris / Aaron backward.

While it is true that the final roadblock to incorporating any drug testing into MLB was the players, certainly management was keen to turn a blind eye while the McGuire / Sosa race restored interest in the game.

Some baseball commentators have stated that just as there is a "modern" era in baseball records (when the more lively ball was introduced), there will now be a drug-enhanced era to divide the record books. That may end up being the way it is dealt with, but if I had my way, the record books on power hitting would be expunged from ~1997 through to ~2005, including single season records and career record contributions during that time. IOW, the Bonds ilk would have forfeited their accomplishements' official recognition by using the drugs, legal or not, banned or not.