Damn. Now I've got to apologize to all those guys and gals I've taught to NOT look over the catcher's outside shoulder.:mad:

Which is why I placed a (?) after the comment. The angle also doesn't prove the "batter's box to batter's box" comment. However, if an umpire did accomplish such a fete, I don't see how s/he could possibly be in the slot.

What this photo does show well is the position of the umpire's feet. They are turned out which is what saves the knees by allowing a more natural bend of the joint.

I said, "The PU's feet almost seem to go from batter's box to batter's box..."

"Almost seem" means only that it appears as if they do from the pictures.

That pic was one I found quickly using google image search. I've seen better examples, but couldn't find one with a quick search. Someone posted a video clip from the WCWS that also showed the superwide stance, although from a distance and kind of fuzzy in a youtube video sort of way.

No one should take any of this in any way as a criticism of the umpires who call at this level. It is merely a curiosity about the rationale behind the stance, since they all seem to do it, which implies that it is mandated.

I still think it looks goofy. As in unnatural or perhaps sumo-esque.

And box-to-box isn't that wide if you think about it. My two points were, 1) that the angle is the angle and nothing, including the position of the umpire, could be taken as a matter of fact (if anything far from it) and 2) an umpire who did that couldn't be working a good slot.

"if we are going to continue this, someone please define the difference between wide and superwide and whatever you call less than wide"

Is it just requiring steps to stand up again, a spread relative to the boxes, a spread relative to the umpire's body, or ... ?
Thanks.