I remember Cliff. He is not the one that went down 18 minutes in his first
game, a pool game either.:)

I may be wrong, but was there not a power struggle in the AFA about a year ago and a large portion of that group moved to NAFA with the youth program?

Yes you are right, hence Oklahoma is now NAFA.

The b starting position is not the biggest deal. The strangest part is for the BU to call all fly balls(not on the lines) and then mosy back into the infield somehow....Not really sure how that will work with the bases loaded and the CF drops the ball.

Joe in Missouri

I try to stay out of the politics. That doesn't mean I am successful at it. I attempt to just go to my field and call the game with the mechanics that the group wants me to use.

The starting position is the "B" slot. I would think that turning to help on a sinking liner and getting close to a 90º angle on a call would be better than running into the infield and being unable to help the PU at all. I am not talking about running all the way out there. I am not an expert but there are some advantages to it.

No, Cliff made it through the week unscathed. Now our 36 minute man is still hearing about his incident. As a matter of fact his nick name at a recent tournament was "36".:D

There was in this area. There were no AFA tornaments here that I am aware
of, all changed to NAFA.

Sounds like you are bound and determined to not like it, adjust to it, or understand it??

Just because an umpire comes inside doesn't mean s/he cannot keep an eye on the ball to help the PU, if necessary. That big thing "three feet above our asses" will turn so you can move one way and watch another.

It's not unusual for a veteran to develop a sense of where s/he is on the field, when they need to turn to watch a runner which allows them to keep an eye on the ball while still moving into position for base coverage. Many of us probably do it without even realizing it.

I would love to understand it but the guy that tried to explain it got me more confused than I was before. He said if I turn my back, don't come back to the infield...then he said, after you turn back around, you yell to your partner where you are going to go in the infield. So, you see my confusion.

Why are they trying to solve a problem that does not exist? In order to justify such radical changes in mechanics, should we not first identify the supposed problems that these changes will rectify?

Joe in Missouri