4th Dimension and Evaluators
 

Of course, there is no such thing, the umpire is just getting a different angle.

What I don't like about the way this is presented is the same as many other little "tricks" that someone comes up with as if there is some new mystical mechanic. This is nothing new. Umpires have always been instructed to adjust their position and view of a play as it's development dictated and that includes stepping in if it helps see the play.

We saw a couple instances last weekend where umpires moved into a position that was not the best place for the play at hand. However, as stated in another post, it was what the evaluators want to see.

My question is, (at all levels) how far are umpires willing to go to satisfy an evaluator? Will an umpire forego a good angle to please an evaluator? Are there evaluators so set on the "given" mechanics, they will gig an umpire that deviates to get a better look at a play?

Thoughts?

Actually, I always heard the "4th dimension" was time travel.

That would certainly make calls much easier.
I do most times I head up 3BL to ASA's recommended position every time there is a call where I should be in 3BL extended and when that position is the superior position.

If you can back yourself up with the manual or a dang good reason .... other than I felt like..... then ok evaluators should at least listen. The 4Th demension has nothing to do with forgoing an angle its the same angle but closer..... If I can back myself with a manual or a dang good reason then I dont care if I get gigged.

It is all about the angle. For an umpire to keep the same angle of view as s/he approaches a play, they would have to lower their eye level. At 6', that umpire better have eyeballs on the knees to have the same view as there was from 12'
;)

I think you got it backwards, but wearing shorts working SP you could have eyes on your knees and not miss the call :)

Not at all. Try it.

dang a little bit rough ... but ... it makes it oh so clear now... I must have taken my sunglasses off.... :eek: U .... M....W fill in the blank outathm

Back to the original question. I used to think this way when I was getting an evaluation. I tried to work the mechanics/suggestions that had been given by the evaluator. Now, I use the mechanics that work/are most comfortable for me in order to make the call, and then attempt to explain my reasoning when the evaluator dings me for it. Often, many evaluators (myself included) can accept a logical reasoning for a mechanic that serves the umpire better. Sometimes it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

That being said, I am a firm believer of moving as the play develops, and using any and all angles that will help me in making decisions. The play is a three dimensional thing, so why exclude something like looking over the top of a play if it provides you with information you need to rule correctly? Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw a MLB umpire use this very tool to make an excellent call at the plate that the TH's were convinced he had blown until they reviewed it in slo-mo a half a dozen times from a myriad of angles. It has also helped me out many times since I incorporated it, including on a play I had just last week in the state semis.

I don't remember any comment of "excluding" anything.

I wasn't implying you. That was simply a rhetorical question. Have you not noticed that I have a bad habit of doing that? :D

Doing what?:rolleyes: