Can anyone explain the theory behind the superwide stance?
 

The superwide stance seems to have become the expected stance for the plate umpire in NCAA and now, perhaps, world cup, too. (Caveat: I haven't seen too many of the games / replays, but the superwide stance certainly sticks out in what I have seen).

I can sort of understand it for little kids - you don't have to bend the knees as much to get down into the zone - but for adult women?

I don't get it.

Anyone know the reasoning / theory?

.02
 

The stance, itself, is slightly noticeable, but I think the way they get back to a normal standing position after each pitch (not batted or wild/passed) is what looks ridiculous and sticks out poorly - move each foot six-ten inches in, back and forth, until feet are normal width apart again = very jerky.

But not much sillier-looking by comparison, in my opinion, than navy, flat-front pants.:)

I have to use it for some of the adult women. If I happen to do FP or Co-Ed SP, there are some sort women that play in my area (one young lady is like 4'10", and I'm 6'1"). Heck, my partner one night was a guy who is 6'6", and he was hurting behind the plate!

Save the back and knees. Steve M should be here any minute with a better explanation.

The wide stance definately save the back and the knees.
I am 6' 5" and have used it with almost all batters down to age 10.
I do remember argueing that it looked dumb etc etc.
But it works, it is easier to keep your back straight in order to keep your upper body in a vertical position and there is actually less strain on your knees.
This is from someone who swore by the scissors stance for years.
It also allows you to get to a set position more quickly and with more stability once you practice it a little bit.

I know that I argued that it left me exposed to being hit by passed balls or wild pitches but when you are properly in the zone, you just don't get hit as much.
I too thought it looked goofy, but when you are going to do a lot of games, or take a lot of pitches in a game it is definately worth it.

Give it a try, over a few games and you will find that the small of your back is less tired (even though you may have thought yours didn't get tired before) and your legs will be less fatigued also.

I have to admit that at first I had a little problem getting up between pitches but you soon develop your own style that works well.
As for getting out to trail the BR or to clear on a passed ball you will be surprised how well you can move.

Well, here I am. I use a very wide stance, but I would not say I'm using a superwide stance. I'm about 6'1 and it looks like my feet are probably a little more than 5 feet apart. In this stance, I sit. My back is straight - that helps prevent back pain in tournaments. My knees are not in great condition - a tiny bit of cartilege in one knee & bone on bone for the other - both will be replaced at some point. This stance is easier on the knees, but it does require a lot of hamstring stretching.

Tom - I would not call it the expected stance for NCAA. The vast majority do not use the superwide stance, though quite a few taller males do have a 4-5 foot spread.

Hawkeye said "...but I think the way they get back to a normal standing position after each pitch (not batted or wild/passed) is what looks ridiculous and sticks out poorly - move each foot six-ten inches in, back and forth, until feet are normal width apart again = very jerky."
I agree, if a person has to struggle to get up, that's not a stance that they should use. Me, I sit and stand - one motion for each.

ScottK's explanation is at least as good as anything I could point out - and he's a lot taller than I am.

I never did like the scissors - it is not a stable stance, as far as I'm concerned. And my neck was always stiff & sore. The wide stance I use is very stable - it's almost like a wide horse stance, for those who know soem martial arts.

Ditto Scott, and Steve.

Since "going wide" I have yet to leave the field with sore back/knees. In an ASA clinic once, Jim Craig had me spread out so far I got stuck! really couldn't get back up. Dick Gayler pushed me at Nationals to widen out. Said it will save knees and back, and looks more atheletic. Well of course they were wrong, until I tried it!

Since going wide, I have yet to have to brace my blown left knee. I feel I am seeing the zone and delivery much better and can get out to trail/move into infield better than before.

I never used scissors, some who do actually have a knee on the dirt. From there I would NEVER get up!

Using the wider stance allows me to "squat" into the zone and keep my head straight with my spine, rather than leaning forward slightly. This gives a much better view.

All I can add is before you dismiss the wide, or even superwide stance, try it! That stance was developed by those with much more experience than I. Maybe they know what they are talking about!

I wouldnt have a problem with the stance on an individual basis, I have a problem with the robot mentality at even the highest levels.

The umpires, for the most part, look terrible.

Why do you consider it "robot mentality"? It is uniform, yet most umpires I know still have something a little different.

I have no problem with the powers that be demanding uniformity in everything from uniforms to mechanics to signals.

And, I make a distinction between a wide stance and a superwide stance.

I do not like the looks of the superwide stance. I think it makes the PU look goofy. And, some of them I've seen clips of clearly struggle to stand back up (but the clips were selected with an agenda, so I don't know how common a problem that is with the superwide stance).

The World Cup is, among other things, a show intended to draw fans. How the game officials look (especially when most sports fans know how an umpire "should" look) I would think would be an issue of some importance. As I said, I think the superwide stance looks goofy.

I don't think it looks goofy, but for a very large percentage of my games (1 ump or 2 ump), I wouldn't use it. It looks like it takes too long to stand up in order to get into position for the next call.

OK, if we are going to continue this, someone please define the difference between wide and superwide and whatever you call less than wide. Mine varies with the batter and catcher, but is basically
- inside foot centered behind the plate
- outside foot just inside the batters box (outer edge)
- feet out at I guess a 120 degreee angle
- 30 inch inseam
- down and up without moving feet, can stay spread between pitches

Well, the wide (as you describe it), I've been taught. The superwide, I've only seen at the WCWS, the World Cup and other similar high level games. The PU's feet almost seem to go from batter's box to batter's box. Here is a pic:

http://untouchablesfastpitch.com/200...pPhotos103.jpg

Nice slot?

Slot?
 

That Japanese catcher Jumped all over the place. The angle of the camera tells us so little. That goes for us trying to call strike zone from the TV. We know that you cannot tell ball-strike from where the camera is, or the dugout, or the stands. ;)

I don't even think that that is a super wide stance in that picture. It looks like your standard college stance that is taught. That can't be Bryan Smith.

Bryan Smith is 6'5" and if he did a squat he would chew his knees up within a year. Seems to work for him though he's one of the best official in the world.

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.