The Official Forum - Drop 3rd strike mechanic

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - Drop 3rd strike mechanic (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/60471-drop-3rd-strike-mechanic.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronald (Post 718284)

And I can assure you that D in your example does not involve a 135 degree path to the runner, as that is default position on a play at 1st in every mechanics manual at every level of softball in the world, and everyone teaches that as the optimal position to take the call. Iowa

1) That may be so but you have not refuted his argument of 135 degrees by sighting what many manuals suggest.

2) The manuals do not state what the path of the runner is so we can do the math 180-45 = 135.

oops he is right.

Try to draw it. baseline is a straight line. base becomes the point. lay your protractor on the line and make the base the point 0. now at the end of the protractor is where you stand. now walk 45 degrees for either point a or b now with you standing on the point look straight ahead to the point (base) where the runner will touch. now walk back to the protractor point zero and draw a line to where you were standing. what is that angle saying on the protractor. just a mere 135 degrees.

you were not listening or just being stubborn with your thought., you feel ncaa is better but argue, present your thoughts and respond intelligently and thougtfully. you failed on this particular "angle point" that is an objective analysis. you get a failing grade for your rebuttal on angles.

The angle in question is 45 degrees (your line of sight) off of the 1st base foul line (which is the runner's path extended). They will ultimately end up at 1st. Their position, on a force play, at any point PRIOR TO 1ST BASE is completely irrelevant.

You can try to use mathematical properties to add or subtract 90 degrees from any of these angles (I prefer pi/2, I was always more of a trig guy) but they are all the same. Imagine it this way: There are 4 imaginary quadrants associated with points A, B, C, and D. When you are standing at any of those points, you are in a certain quadrant and it is impossible for your angle to be larger than the entire quadrant itself. You can refer to it as +/- 45 degrees if you want to, it is irrelevant.

Try going to a clinic or association meeting sometime and tell them that your goal for a force play at 1B is to obtain a 135 degree angle.

Good luck with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IowaBlue (Post 718288)

You seem to possess a limited understanding of the different positions that are available to umpires on various plays, relative to other factors involved like partner responsibilities, player abilities, and calling priorities. Perhaps this is just your inexperience with the game showing through.

You are demonstrating an extremely narrow-minded view as it pertains to how different positions can accomplish different things and how we often have to compromise or alter our positioning based on how the play develops.

If you want to advance in this craft, you are going to eventually have to start opening your mind to new possibilities on what is possible, probable, and finally, desired.

Until then I feel sorry that you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture, both literally and figuratively.

You lack reading comprehension. That's part of why we're not getting anywhere. I'm very explicitly not taking a position on whether any of these positions are best and that's not because I don't have an open mind. I do think about it and try and improve. And I am capable of doing the analysis that you seem to suggest but not of doing it well enough to go telling anybody else how to do it.
My position is very simple here in a place I am much more solid. As a matter of mathematics alone, you're statements are analytically wrong. Not synthetically wrong (which would give you room to argue) but analytically wrong.
You can make a case that all four angles always yield the same benefits and I'd be interested to hear it. But when you simply try and contend they are mathematically equal, you are analytically wrong.
________
Asiansexslave

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 718319)

Read my post after the one you quoted.

I have explained things the best that I can as I am not a math major.

I think we are seeing the relationships from a different perspective. I understand what you are saying about 45 degrees off of first base line. That creates an angle with the base. However there is also another angle created from where you are standing at 45 degrees. That is the 135 angle Youngump and I are refering to. Do you see that?

That is all I am interested in. That point and nothing else.

OK we strayed away from the OP.

Everyone does their called strike three differently. I never say the word “three”, but my verbal call on strike three is different than other called strikes. On strike three I give my verbal call before I move, then come up with a hammer strike signal, followed by a “punch out” aka “pulling the ripcord”.

If the batter is not out because of U3K, I do exactly the same thing on strike three except I don’t make the punchout move until F2 tags the batter. If the defense makes the play at 1B instead I never make the punchout move as the out call belongs to my partner.

The decision to make or not make that punchout move is part of a routine to make sure that I am applying the U3K rule. I would respectfully disagree with the argument that this is the same as making a different call on a missed base. A missed base in an appeal play; an uncaught third strike is not. Having said that I do believe the players need to know what is going on; I am not giving a big demonstrative signal on an U3K, simply not signaling an out when in fact the player is not yet out.

Normally, I give the same strike three call, whether it is U3K or not, but with the same few minor variations from one K to the next. But essentially it is "Sell Strike".

When the Sell is not necesssary or out of place, I will verbalize it as "Strike 3".