Mechanics discussion
 

IrishMafia said in another thread that he thinks FP mechanics need changes.
What are you suggestions, Mike?

Also, the rules thread was getting off track into mechanics like SP PU position; so please put any more of that in this one, as NCASA suggested.

The idea about dumbing down the mechanics catering to unathletic umpires is a question worth bringing into this discussion.

In a perfect world, (which my mentors constantly remind me that it is not), all umpires would be physically and mentally able to perform their duties with the current mechanics. Unfortunatley, this is not the case in our area as we have a severe shortage of umpires of any calibre, that we have to pretty much take anyone who is willing to get on the field.

There are a number of umpires in my association who legitimatley qualify as physically handicapped. They are "good umpires", but the first few times I worked with them, it was very, very frustrating. I labeled them as plain lazy, and even put a Partner Block on the Arbiter on one of them.

One guy took so much time getting across the field after a play at 3B required him to get back to A, that I actually let the pitcher start the pitch when he was still passing through B. Honestly, I held the pitcher up as long as I could. The runner was out at 3B; defense got set, pitcher had ball ready to pitch, batter is in box, and BU was moving at a speed greatly less than 1 mph. BTW this was in the 1st inning of the 1st game of the day! He never left A to make the calls at 1B.

I even asked him if he was OK, and he said he was fine. After realizng that it was physical, not mental, my attitude switched from anger to sympathy.

I am not in in favor of dumbing down the mechanics to cater to the lowest common denominator. That being said, this (and other sitches) took away from the game. Until such time as we can have a sufficiently large talent pool to support a competitive umpring environment, with a weeding out process for the lower rated umpires, we might actually be forced to consider alternative mechanics.

I cannot disagree with anything Tony has stated here.

Yes, that cracking was the ice of hell freezing over. :eek:

The only problem is that while it is a concern, the teams are still paying the money for a specific service. Like it or not, this is a fact of life and as a consumer, if I do not receive the service, and I expect the best, for which I am paying, I'm not going to be happy.

You know my feelings of the 3-umpire mechanics for U3 with runner on 1st. Works betting in FP than SP, but it gives the umpire a better perspective of the plays.

Also, in FP, not so much a change, but consistency in teaching, I guess. We have been told that when pinched/blocked by the catcher in the slot to go up. However, there are UICs who teach the umpire to move further outside the slot and find an angle between batter and catcher. While it should be a rarity, I have seen umpires trying to catch a good look and end up turning their body hooking the C and getting way too close the the batter. I'm not a fan of the GD stance, but I believe looking down through the zone would be better than trying to sneak a peek between batter and catcher.

While we have to cater to the less mobile and possibly vary the coverage for a specific game, the defined and taught mechanics should always be based on the best coverage, best results over time; not "dumbed down". That would also encourage those who need it to work on conditioning and preparation.

For everyone else, you mean the "non-rotation" U3 in C slot, I assume.

Also, while a standard should be defined and taught; there is a lot of variety in the "pinched/blocked" problem, along with varying heights of catcher, batter, even the umpire. My concern is changing the viewpoint from pitch to pitch when going to a "look down"; especially since high/low is often the more crucial aspect of the zone.

My opinion is that establishing and teaching a standard is absolutely the ideal when dealing with the masses. That is the ASA mantra, and has been effective for many years. To some degree, they ARE the "dummy down" mechanics.

But, I also think that when the mantra becomes dogma, that is short-sighted. We are taught there is just one way; and even when it is acknowledged that it isn't the best way in a specific situation, that is the only approved way. Keep it simple, stupid. So, evaluation more often is objective, based on strict criteria; but the results can suffer.

Instead of getting in the best position to get it right. Years ago, a highly respected NUS member was effectively shunned for teaching "advanced mechanics for advanced umpires". He wasn't teaching the masses; he taught (suggested) differing mechanics to those assigned to ASA major national tournaments, or wanting to learn at the Advanced Camps.

In principle, I think the NCAA philosophy is better. It suggests alternate stances that can be used so that individuals can use what works best for them, states that there aren't 'x' spots to stand so that thinking umpires can adjust to game situations, and designates the results and goals as being more important than the means. Unfortunately, (in MY experience), the reality is that isn't the criteria used by many of the conference coordinators, their evaluators, or even all of the prior SUIP; evaluation results all too often are/were based on the 'x' spots, and the "thinking" used by the "thinking umpires" often dismissed if the evaluator wanted it done differently. In my opinion, it is even harder to be evaluated when the criteria is intended to be subjective; even more so when they get to interject their personal preferences that have nothing to do with calling the game (like if you chew gum versus seeds, or where you put your sunglasses, or what facial hair is acceptable, or if you choose to drink beer on YOUR time).

The other overriding concern I have is the efforts to standardize mechanics when the games are different. It is crystal clear that slowpitch has different rules than fastpitch; it is, frankly, a different game. When the rules are different, and the game is different, there should be no problem with different mechanics. SP can start in B to save steps; if you need to focus on the pitcher's footwork relative to the pitching plate, then A is a better starting position. When the height of a pitch isn't a factor, then setting prior to release is a plus; when gauging the height of a ball thrown with arc is required, it may be (certainly was assumed to be for a great many years) better to stay upright, make that decision, then let the ball take you down through the zone (isn't that the same as "tracking"??).

As to the other thread, I would NEVER agree that the BU in slowpitch should always stay outside; just as I really don't agree that the BU should always buttonhook. In my personal opinion (albeit NOT what I teach), both should be acceptable, with a thinking umpire utilizing what works best (for THAT umpire and crew) in certain game situations.

But, that's just me. Not speaking the party line (any party line, obviously); just my thoughts.

I agree, for many of the same reason you have already stated.

And yet, some umpires still cannot get the point of why they need to be somewhere. Forget HOW, they don't even bother with getting there.

Absolutely agree. I review every umpire evaluation from a national to make sure someone doesn't get screwed because some asst. UIC is more anal than I am :eek: . It is unbelievable, but it happens more than it should.

I disagree with this and usually see it as a reason offered to refute ASA's mechanics. I have never been told or instructed to stand a particular place to make a call that was contrary to getting the best available view.

I have been told where to start and the path to take to get to the general area using ASA's mechanics, but the NCAA does the same thing. However, if you need to move one way or the other to make the call, you do it and ASA mechanics will not tell you otherwise.

I was one of those umpires. The only problem was making these changes less than four hours before the first game. The individuals didn't have much of a problem, but as a crew it didn't work. We reverted to straight ASA mechanics and BP didn't have a problem with that. By the end of the tournament, some of us worked well with it in certain situations, but still stayed with an ASA base.

Yet those perceptions apply and affect ratings in both ASA and NCAA.

As was borne out in the major noted above, the advantage to standard mechanics is that any number of umpires can walk on any field and without so much as a few words can work a game successfully. I can, and have, stepped on the field with two strangers and all work a great game.

I'll say it again, both ASA and NCAA and probably every other association tell the umpire where to start, where to finish and how to get there in a preferred manner. However, they all support whatever it takes to get the call correct. Some have different ideas than others on how to get to that point, but the objective is the same.

Part of the problem using the same format for both. Like it or not, it IS a fact of life that ASA must accommodate a much wider spectrum of umpires and BPs thought of the advanced training of advanced umpires is, and will continue, to be nearly impossible as long as the code and costs interfere with umpire assignments at the national level.

In the NCAA, the umpire must earn their way and the NCAA makes somewhat of an effort to get the best umpires on the field in a closed shop. As long as the majority of umpires at ASA nationals are local umpires, some not qualified, ASA will be limited to the KISS method of instruction and direction.

Yet, if I were to rim from A on a ball hit to shallow left in an ASA State or National, I would get dinged for it, even though my reasoning is to keep all of the elements in front of me at all times.

Yeah, I pretty much said that:

Some have different ideas than others on how to get to that point, but the objective is the same.

But if you followed ASA mechanics that varied from that of the NCAA in a NCAA championship game, you wouldn't get dinged?

An umpire got dinged a couple years ago at an NCAA championship for opening a beer AFTER the tournament, but still in the locker room. There is the story of an umpire lost games in the NCAA Championships in OKC because she had her picture taken on the field while there were still a handful of parents still in the stands at the end of the night. I wouldn't doubt many umpires on here have their own stories.

Again, same target, same demands and expectations, comparable disciplinary actions for failure, just a different path.

Mike, you are presenting a very simplistic view, especially when it comes to what is written in the manual used by NCAA umpires. There are two inaccuracies in your statement: the NCAA manual does not specific ONE path to which an umpire moves to ONE calling position. This provides flexibility to read a play and take the best path. Therefore, to answer your question, if an umpire were to pivot (where the NCAA preference is to stay "outside"), would they get dinged? No.


Mike, the two stories you mention have nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with a code of conduct. In the former, this is expressly forbidden in the NCAA manual. So to be dinged in this case, there is justification.

The point I was making is that in NCAA I have options. On the play I mentioned, I could either rim or button hook in just like ASA reccommends. Both would be totally acceptable.

I would like to see ASA become a little more lenient at the higher levels where umpire mechanics are concerned.

As for what happens after a game or in a locker room, that isn't covered in any rule book, and thus is strictly subjective to the UIC. This is true of any organization.

I would agree they shouldn't, but as Steve pointed out earlier, what should be and what is are not necessarily the same thing. Would I be wrong in my belief that if an umpire used strictly ASA mechanics, they would have the same advantage to be assigned higher levels of post season play?

More in response to Scott.


You are correct and wasn't meant to be. It was a response to how Scott made it sound as if ASA is the mean step-sister by being so strict.

Again, more below.

See above.

I couldn't agree more, well, almost. My major concern is always that the play gets covered by the umpire who is supposed to cover it. Obviously, there are times an umpire needs help, but that should be the exception. That also means that the crew must be on the same page, or it just isn't going to be a good game for Blue.

But we are trying to compare two different animals. The NCAA is a closed shop that has no problem fielding umpires though I'm not impressed that some umpires receive assignments in multiple levels. But that is what they think works best and it is their call.

Meanwhile, the ASA assignments are more spread out and the quality of umpire is out of the UIC's hands. In some areas, even the state/metro has no say in who is sent to championship play.

It was noted earlier that this is in some NCAA manual. From the NCAA Div I Manual:


31.1.15 Availability of Alcoholic Beverages.

IMHO, there is much room for improvement in defining situations where (and how) help should and should not be given, both solicited and unsolicited.

In particular, INT/OBS, a topic that is near and dear to my heart. :o

Sitch: Umpire who has primary responsibilty, either misses or simply does not call INT/OBS; but partner does.

What is the best way for partner to handle this?
a.) Do nothing, unless help is solicited.
> While this approach preserves the integrity of the primary caller, it could become a difficult situation with coach who would ask, "Well, if you saw, it why didn't you call it, especially when a Dead Ball call is prescribed by rule?"

b.) Offer unsolicited help..If so, how should unsolcited help be offered?
> While this approach is an attempt to "get it right", it could create the perception that one umpire is overturning another umpire's call.

Just askin' :confused:

I guess I'm a "call it if you see it" person, regardless of "primary area" for calls like INT, OBS, pitch hitting batter, UC; although will reverse if partner has a good reason. Of course, this does not apply to out/safe, catch/no-catch, etc.