Drop 3rd strike mechanic

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

But of course, his pitcher hasn't been called for an IP all season, so why start now?

Flash back to last spring.

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There may be some items in my list that were not influenced by the coaches. And some of these are, I agree, helpful at times. I don't want to debate the legitimacy of each item, but if they were all "no-brainers", then all other versions of softball rules and mechanics would adopt them!!

This is not necessarily the case. From a brief perusal of the board, it appears that you are an ASA adherent, which is fine. I myself swore by them for years. I have recently come to the realization, after working my last few nationals and having conversations with some of my acquaintances on the national staff, state UIC, going to clinics, etc, that for some reason they are very scared and reluctant to change.

Their mechanics options, compared to what the NCAA now offers, are almost becoming a joke, to the point that this will be the first time in my 15 years as an umpire that I won't be registering with them and I fail to see why people put up with their restrictions in terms of what umpires can do on the field.

As has been noted in another post, virtually every mechanics change you pointed out that the NCAA has adopted is actually a good and beneficial change. The exception is this new "safe" declaration on a dropped 3rd strike. That seems like some serious overkill and I will be interested to view the online rules clinic video and see it discussed.

As to the original poster in this thread, don't over-think the situation. The most important, and really only information, that needs to be conveyed, is that the pitch was in fact "Strike 3." How you go about reporting that information is of little consequence. Don't worry about "tipping your hand." The players involved are responsible for recognizing the situation and acting accordingly. It is highly unlikely that any minor vocal inflections are going to be noticed by players in the heat of competition, especially if they didn't already realize that the situation dictated that the runner should run and the catcher should make a throw.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

I have recently come to the realization, after working my last few nationals and having conversations with some of my acquaintances on the national staff, state UIC, going to clinics, etc, that for some reason they are very scared and reluctant to change.

Can you provide some examples of what you perceive us to be "scared" to change? Maybe it can be addressed in a couple weeks.

Their mechanics options, compared to what the NCAA now offers, are almost becoming a joke,

Really? Tell us what makes you laugh.

to the point that this will be the first time in my 15 years as an umpire that I won't be registering with them and I fail to see why people put up with their restrictions in terms of what umpires can do on the field.

And after 45 years of umpiring, a few 20+ years with ASA, other than issues that would place an umpire in jeopardy, I have no idea to what you are talking about. But that's me.

BTW, welcome

[IowaBlue]

Mechanics issues include the following:

Plate stances. The old-school heel-toe, box, up-down squatting style that ASA teaches is a poor mechanic. The NCAA offers you many more comfortable options. I refuse to work ASA fastpitch for this very reason. It is too physically demanding, uncomfortable, and is just not the optimum way to call a game.

I know for awhile you weren't allowed to wear tan colored pads or silver frames on your mask, which would have knocked me out for consideration as well, although I think this was changed recently.

Base mechanics:

This continued insistence on "button-hooks" at all times and the refusal to let umpires us the "rim" mechanic. This is just plain dumb. It wastes energy and accomplishes NOTHING. I brought this up to Julie Johnson at a clinic and she would have none of it.

I brought this up to another staff member at a clinic (maybe even a pre-national one, I can't remember):

3-man crew, no runners on, batter hits a clean single. No umpire has chased. Why on earth does the 1B need to button-hook inside the diamond? You have help ahead at 2nd with the 3B inside the diamond. Your next responsibility as the 1B is to cover home if P goes to 3rd. There is absolutely no reason at all that 1B needs to "beat the batter-runner" inside here with a button hook. It wastes time and energy, and is just a goofy mechanic.

Two nationals ago I was reamed by the UIC for using the Gerry Davis, "hands-on-knees" base set stance. I had been using it all year, and it is very comfortable. There was no reason given other than "we don't do that here."

The fact that I couldn't use my normal routine in getting set for plays at 1B affected my comfort level, timing, and eventually my performance. Why? For no reason other than "we don't do that here."

My state UIC, who is a top level Division I umpire, was UIC at my last national. When discussing mechanics in the pre-tournament clinic, he chastised and ridiculed various NCAA mechanics when the were brought up, even though he himself USES THOSE VERY SAME MECHANICS when he is working a game. What is good enough for him is not, apparently, good enough for us, because our hats say ASA on them.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Whether you like the reasoning or not, we have all heard it many times and places, there needs to be one standard when training so many umpires. The NCAA, nor the franchised associations, doesn't have to train umpires. People don't get out of bed one morning and go to an association meeting, register and pick up a college schedule. Those dealing with college-level umpires are getting a broken in product which in many if not most cases was trained by an ASA affiliated association.

Billy P was correct in his assertion that it should not be an advanced school for umpires, but a school for advanced umpiring. The only problem is that unless every umpire has had similar training, the mechanics for that particular game must be the lowest common standard among the crew.

The NCAA has a closed shop and limited spectrum of a single game. ASA has to address at least three different games with participants from 6 to 80 and in some cases the same age range in umpiring.

Umpiring is just like everything else in life, you preform as directed for that particular game. If you have worked nationals, one of the things your UIC should impress upon you is that you do whatever the UIC tells you to do even if you know it isn't that way in the book. Say screw it and do it your own way, you may not return. BTW, pretty much the same with everything including the job which provides for your family.

Mechanics issues include the following:

Plate stances. The old-school heel-toe, box, up-down squatting style that ASA teaches is a poor mechanic. The NCAA offers you many more comfortable options. I refuse to work ASA fastpitch for this very reason. It is too physically demanding, uncomfortable, and is just not the optimum way to call a game.

I grew up working multiple stances, scissors, what is now referred to the GD stance which was not much different than what many baseball umpires were working in the '50s & '60s, just you only had one hand on your knee because the other was holding that balloon in place. I eventually moved to the slot after a couple years. I was in my mid-teens and already having issues with my back and neck working the scissors and the GD-equivilant stances.

I have found that the slot gives an umpire the most consistent view of the strike zone because you are set up in the same place in relation to the batter and zone every time. I have also found that umpires who set with their hands on the knees always get the same view of the ball, but not a strike zone since that changes with every batter.

If you find it too demanding, might I suggest you are either not executing correctly or are out of shape. This stance has allowed me to continue umpiring in comfort. BTW, I used the same stance in FP & SP and it works great for me.

I know for awhile you weren't allowed to wear tan colored pads or silver frames on your mask, which would have knocked me out for consideration as well, although I think this was changed recently.

Its called a "uniform" for a reason. I've seen umpires show up with masks they had left from their HS days because they were comfortable. The problem is they also came in the school colors. I have seen green, royal blue, purple, maroon and orange. I understand why there needs to be a standard.

Base mechanics:

This continued insistence on "button-hooks" at all times and the refusal to let umpires us the "rim" mechanic. This is just plain dumb. It wastes energy and accomplishes NOTHING. I brought this up to Julie Johnson at a clinic and she would have none of it.

I brought this up to another staff member at a clinic (maybe even a pre-national one, I can't remember):

3-man crew, no runners on, batter hits a clean single. No umpire has chased. Why on earth does the 1B need to button-hook inside the diamond? You have help ahead at 2nd with the 3B inside the diamond. Your next responsibility as the 1B is to cover home if P goes to 3rd. There is absolutely no reason at all that 1B needs to "beat the batter-runner" inside here with a button hook. It wastes time and energy, and is just a goofy mechanic.

How does it waste time? You need to be heading toward the plate anyway, why fight for space with the coach and runner. If you were walking the line, it shouldn't be an issue.

Two nationals ago I was reamed by the UIC for using the Gerry Davis, "hands-on-knees" base set stance. I had been using it all year, and it is very comfortable. There was no reason given other than "we don't do that here."

The fact that I couldn't use my normal routine in getting set for plays at 1B affected my comfort level, timing, and eventually my performance. Why? For no reason other than "we don't do that here.".

What other reason do they need? You are in their sand box, you play by their rules. If a player/coach tells you they have been doing something all year, do you reverse your IP call?

My state UIC, who is a top level Division I umpire, was UIC at my last national. When discussing mechanics in the pre-tournament clinic, he chastised and ridiculed various NCAA mechanics when the were brought up, even though he himself USES THOSE VERY SAME MECHANICS when he is working a game. What is good enough for him is not, apparently, good enough for us, because our hats say ASA on them.

He can differentiate from ASA and NCAA. They are different games, from the age and skill level of the participants to the liablities of all involved.

It is what it is. There are things the NCAA and NFHS do that I believe to be absurd, but on their field, that is what you do regardless of personal opinion. There are things ASA demands that I believe to be ludicrous, but when on their field, that is what you do. An umpire who shows up at a national who is not qualified or doesn't know and execuate the proper ASA
mechanics will very possibly earn a phone call from KR or the deputy supvr of that area to the state UIC.

Your state UIC knows the difference between associations and acts appropriately based upon the game in front of him.

It is a shame that you are not going to register ASA, but considering the passion of your opinions, it may be better for all parties.

Good luck.

[IowaBlue]

Whether you like the reasoning or not, we have all heard it many times and places, there needs to be one standard when training so many umpires. The NCAA, nor the franchised associations, doesn't have to train umpires. People don't get out of bed one morning and go to an association meeting, register and pick up a college schedule. Those dealing with college-level umpires are getting a broken in product which in many if not most cases was trained by an ASA affiliated association.

Billy P was correct in his assertion that it should not be an advanced school for umpires, but a school for advanced umpiring. The only problem is that unless every umpire has had similar training, the mechanics for that particular game must be the lowest common standard among the crew.

The NCAA has a closed shop and limited spectrum of a single game. ASA has to address at least three different games with participants from 6 to 80 and in some cases the same age range in umpiring.

You make good points, but are also missing the forest for the trees. Yes, virtually all good umpires started with ASA training. This is part of my disillusion. I think that training can be improved and it hurts some umpires that fail to see the larger picture that there is a world outside of the ASA manual, and this can in turn hurt the games and teams that they are working.

And as far as the "lowest common denominator," that is entirely my point. Many of these NCAA mechanics such as the GD stance and "rimming" are much easier and simpler to utilize than what ASA offers. So why are they excluded entirely from ASA doctrine?

Umpiring is just like everything else in life, you preform as directed for that particular game. If you have worked nationals, one of the things your UIC should impress upon you is that you do whatever the UIC tells you to do even if you know it isn't that way in the book. Say screw it and do it your own way, you may not return. BTW, pretty much the same with everything including the job which provides for your family.

No s*** , Sherlock.

I've been around the block enough to know that this is the deal, thus my reluctance to work ASA anymore do to not wanting to compromise down to their standards.

I eventually moved to the slot after a couple years. I was in my mid-teens and already having issues with my back and neck working the scissors and the GD-equivilant stances.

My experience has been just the opposite. The old, ASA style stance just killed my back and knees. Now I use the GD and could go all day long behind the plate.

I have also found that umpires who set with their hands on the knees always get the same view of the ball, but not a strike zone since that changes with every batter.

I don't really understand your point here. With GD, you get EXACTLY the same look on every single pitch. This is what you should be shooting for. Yes, batters change height, and you adjust the zone accordingly. Maintaining the same view throughout the entire game leads to a more consistent zone than from one where you are changing perspective with every single new batter.

FWIW, all of the top level D1 umpires in my area use some variation of the scissors.

If you find it too demanding, might I suggest you are either not executing correctly or are out of shape.

Execution, possibly, but you will find few umpires in better physical condition than me. I am relatively young and still in "fighting shape."

Its called a "uniform" for a reason. I've seen umpires show up with masks they had left from their HS days because they were comfortable. The problem is they also came in the school colors. I have seen green, royal blue, purple, maroon and orange. I understand why there needs to be a standard.

Apparently the all-knowing ASA pooh bahs agree with me and not you, as they have recently changed their uniform requirements to be more inclusive.

How does it waste time? You need to be heading toward the plate anyway, why fight for space with the coach and runner. If you were walking the line, it shouldn't be an issue.

You are not heading to the plate unless and until the BR commits to 2B, drawing the plate umpire up to 3rd. If this does not occur, which is quite common, you are indeed wasting energy and wasting time that you could be concentrating on the 1st base area to witness possible obstruction, BR touching the bag, rounding the bag hard and then diving back to 1st on a close play, etc.

What other reason do they need? You are in their sand box, you play by their rules.

As noted, I'll just stay out of the sandbox altogether. I think it hurts the majority of the children, however, when the sandbox is too small to include every interested participant.

s what you do regardless of personal opinion. There are things ASA demands that I believe to be ludicrous, but when on their field, that is what you do. An umpire who shows up at a national who is not qualified or doesn't know and execuate the proper ASA
mechanics will very possibly earn a phone call from KR or the deputy supvr of that area to the state UIC.

I have worked numerous nationals all over the country and have been exposed to a LARGE number of umpires that had little understanding of basic ASA mechanics. You should know as well as I do that in many instances "bodies" are assigned to fill out a tournament. I have heard horror stories from others as well. You really need to get off of your high horse on this topic.

It is a shame that you are not going to register ASA, but considering the passion of your opinions, it may be better for all parties.

There are literally dozens of reasons behind why I am leaving ASA, and mechanics is only a very small part of it.

But since you asked, I felt I would share some of my concerns.

It appears that there is very little change forthcoming on the horizon, so perhaps I am getting out at the right time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

You make good points, but are also missing the forest for the trees. Yes, virtually all good umpires started with ASA training. This is part of my disillusion. I think that training can be improved and it hurts some umpires that fail to see the larger picture that there is a world outside of the ASA manual, and this can in turn hurt the games and teams that they are working.

I do not believe that to be true and your statements about your UIC seem to show that to a point.

And as far as the "lowest common denominator," that is entirely my point. Many of these NCAA mechanics such as the GD stance and "rimming" are much easier and simpler to utilize than what ASA offers. So why are they excluded entirely from ASA doctrine?

Actually, "working the rim" in a general setting proves to be a lazy man's mechanic in some circles. And the rim doesn't work well with less than three umpires. And again, NCAA is an advanced level of umpiring of which many umpires cannot adapt.

I've been around the block enough to know that this is the deal, thus my reluctance to work ASA anymore do to not wanting to compromise down to their standards.

That's hilarious.

My experience has been just the opposite. The old, ASA style stance just killed my back and knees. Now I use the GD and could go all day long behind the plate.

Okay, good for you.

I don't really understand your point here. With GD, you get EXACTLY the same look on every single pitch. This is what you should be shooting for. Yes, batters change height, and you adjust the zone accordingly. Maintaining the same view throughout the entire game leads to a more consistent zone than from one where you are changing perspective with every single new batter.

Yes, you get the same look at every pitch. But that is only one factor of your process and unfortunately because some umpires don't work the slot in the GD (which would not be right) adds one more factor into your set up and that is the catcher. Working the slot, I get the same strike zone for every batter for every pitch and the catcher rarely is a factor where I set up. Works for you, good. Doesn't mean it is better as the slot has been working well for me for over 40 years.

The only real difference between ASAs mechanic and the lock-box stance is just that, the lock portion. BTW, I learned a long time ago to not put my hands on the knees/legs which a pitch coming. The simple reason is that I prefer to avoid broken bones.

Execution, possibly, but you will find few umpires in better physical condition than me. I am relatively young and still in "fighting shape."

Then unless chronic, I don't know how this would hurt your back. I've got a sciatica issue for years and I'm very comfortable in it.

Apparently the all-knowing ASA pooh bahs agree with me and not you, as they have recently changed their uniform requirements to be more inclusive.

They added tan pads and silver coating, but deal. Of course, they did it for the few instead of the masses, but it's no big deal.

You are not heading to the plate unless and until the BR commits to 2B, drawing the plate umpire up to 3rd. If this does not occur, which is quite common, you are indeed wasting energy and wasting time that you could be concentrating on the 1st base area to witness possible obstruction, BR touching the bag, rounding the bag hard and then diving back to 1st on a close play, etc.

Nothing that I cannot see and from just as good a view if not better, with an extremely clear view from inside the diamond. I've worked outside, for Billy P and I am aware of how it works, even train it sometimes, but there isn't anything you can do in one that is not equally and easily attainable in the other.

I have worked numerous nationals all over the country and have been exposed to a LARGE number of umpires that had little understanding of basic ASA mechanics. You should know as well as I do that in many instances "bodies" are assigned to fill out a tournament. I have heard horror stories from others as well. You really need to get off of your high horse on this topic.

Why, only you are allowed to have an opinion? And I'm on a high horse?

And if they didn't understand the simplistic mechanics, how do you think the LARGE number of umpires would fair with the more difficult ones?

There are literally dozens of reasons behind why I am leaving ASA, and mechanics is only a very small part of it.

But since you asked, I felt I would share some of my concerns.
It appears that there is very little change forthcoming on the horizon, so perhaps I am getting out at the right time.

Hey, to each their own. I just asked you to clarify general statements and in turn offered another view. You don't want to hear it, fine by me, I've nothing to prove to you.

As noted before, good luck.

[IowaBlue]

Actually, "working the rim" in a general setting proves to be a lazy man's mechanic in some circles. And the rim doesn't work well with less than three umpires.

Choosing not to frivolously waste energy, in order to obtain EXACTLY THE SAME ANGLE as one would achieve via a buttonhook, is not being lazy, it's being smart. People that can't understand or don't recognize that fact are not people that I am interested in impressing.

And the rim mechanic works very well in a 2man system. If there are no runners on, P is more than capable of helping out at 3rd if need be.

That's hilarious.

It's also true.

Yes, you get the same look at every pitch. But that is only one factor of your process and unfortunately because some umpires don't work the slot in the GD (which would not be right) adds one more factor into your set up and that is the catcher. Working the slot, I get the same strike zone for every batter for every pitch and the catcher rarely is a factor where I set up. Works for you, good. Doesn't mean it is better as the slot has been working well for me for over 40 years.

Why do you continually bring up the slot? Of course I work the slot, all good umpires do. I have never even considered any other way.

Working the slot and GD/scissors/knee stances are not mutually exclusive, something that you seem to be failing to grasp.

Then unless chronic, I don't know how this would hurt your back.

As you noted earlier, most likely execution was the issue. I never really felt comfortable in that stance so very likely was not doing it correctly.

The constant "up-down" nature was certainly difficult on my knees, which is certainly the fault of the stance and not a matter of execution.

Nothing that I cannot see and from just as good a view if not better, with an extremely clear view from inside the diamond. I've worked outside, for Billy P and I am aware of how it works, even train it sometimes, but there isn't anything you can do in one that is not equally and easily attainable in the other.

You are displaying a marked lack of understanding of what the two mechanics are attempting to achieve, and how they go about doing that.

Of course you end up with the same look via both methods. That is entirely the point. Why waste the motion and mental/physical effort only to end up with EXACTLY THE SAME LOOK as you would if you hadn't moved at all (relatively speaking). And while you are on the move and spinning around, turning your head, etc, you are limiting your field of vision and just making it harder to see all of the things that you need to see.

I work 16" SP here in Iowa, and that is played on 60' bases, and it can be quite difficult to beat an adult male inside from the A position in a 3man crew, particularly on a hot day when you have worked several games.

And there is absolutely no reason at all to do it, anyway.

nd if they didn't understand the simplistic mechanics, how do you think the LARGE number of umpires would fair with the more difficult ones?

That's the point, they are not more difficult. They are easier, both mentally and physically.

You don't want to hear it, fine by me, I've nothing to prove to you.

Nor do I have anything to prove to you.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but in many of your posts on this forum you come across as a pretty big prick.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

Choosing not to frivolously waste energy, in order to obtain EXACTLY THE SAME ANGLE as one would achieve via a buttonhook, is not being lazy, it's being smart. People that can't understand or don't recognize that fact are not people that I am interested in impressing.

Ahh....but it is not the exact same angle

And the rim mechanic works very well in a 2man system. If there are no runners on, P is more than capable of helping out at 3rd if need be.

Sure, and who is covering 2B? You are not going to outrun the BR to 2B and you cannot take the same shortcut available inside the diamond. Don't know how many times I've seen an umpire not coming inside end up making a call from behind the runner.

It's also true.

Yeah, okay.

Why do you continually bring up the slot? Of course I work the slot, all good umpires do. I have never even considered any other way.

Working the slot and GD/scissors/knee stances are not mutually exclusive, something that you seem to be failing to grasp.

Working the slot is correct, but I'm well aware of it. However, not everyone else is. There are a few former baseball umpires around here including one out of Harry Wendelstedt's school, actually set up behind the catcher and truly believe that is the proper mechanic because they insist it is how they were taught as the GD stance.

No matter what it is, one needs to at least do it correctly.

As you noted earlier, most likely execution was the issue. I never really felt comfortable in that stance so very likely was not doing it correctly.

The constant "up-down" nature was certainly difficult on my knees, which is certainly the fault of the stance and not a matter of execution.

Hmmm....that depends on how your knees toggle. Directly toward the toes means there should be little to no additional stress on them. Any other direction can be very painful. My knees have been torn up for years from the wear and tear of playing and going set on the plate is not a problem.

You are displaying a marked lack of understanding of what the two mechanics are attempting to achieve, and how they go about doing that.

Of course you end up with the same look via both methods. That is entirely the point. Why waste the motion and mental/physical effort only to end up with EXACTLY THE SAME LOOK as you would if you hadn't moved at all (relatively speaking). And while you are on the move and spinning around, turning your head, etc, you are limiting your field of vision and just making it harder to see all of the things that you need to see.

Whoa, Bubba, I didn't say that. I don't believe you do get the same look. Not only that, but once inside, an umpire can get a better angle with fewer steps while seeing all the same essential portions of the play.

I work 16" SP here in Iowa, and that is played on 60' bases, and it can be quite difficult to beat an adult male inside from the A position in a 3man crew, particularly on a hot day when you have worked several games.

And there is absolutely no reason at all to do it, anyway.

Come on, we've all worked adult games at 60'. Hell, have worked them at 55'. Getting inside is not that big a deal.

That's the point, they are not more difficult. They are easier, both mentally and physically.

Never had a problem with them. Never had a problem teaching them. And never had a problem explaining them to people who did have a hard time understanding them.

Nor do I have anything to prove to you.

Didn't think you did.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but in many of your posts on this forum you come across as a pretty big prick.

Oh well, I guess I have something in common with Prof. Harold Hill.

[IowaBlue]

Ahh....but it is not the exact same angle

Ummmmmm....Yes it is.

Do you even know what "angle" means in this instance? For any position or view that you can achieve from inside the diamond, I can achieve a corollary and IDENTICAL angle from the outside. There is nothing inherently superior to either inside or outside position in this instance. You may want to brush up on your geometry.

Sure, and who is covering 2B? You are not going to outrun the BR to 2B and you cannot take the same shortcut available inside the diamond. Don't know how many times I've seen an umpire not coming inside end up making a call from behind the runner.

Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding.

You are ending up in exactly the same position outside the diamond at 2B that you would be in if you had buttonhooked inside. But because you didn't buttonhook, you have actually moved a shorter distance and thus it will take you LESS time to get there.

Think about that for a moment.

No matter what it is, one needs to at least do it correctly.

Agreed.

The slot is the only way to go.

Whoa, Bubba, I didn't say that. I don't believe you do get the same look. Not only that, but once inside, an umpire can get a better angle with fewer steps while seeing all the same essential portions of the play.

Again, you are demonstrating that you don't really understand the concept of "angle" as it pertains to officiating.

Whether you are in front of or behind the runner, the "angle" is exactly the same. You are simply not used to being outside therefore you feel less comfortable. That doesn't mean that your view is actually any different.

As far as "beating the runner to 2B," it is no more difficult than achieving the same position from roughly the same starting point on a steal play.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

Ummmmmm....Yes it is.

Do you even know what "angle" means in this instance? For any position or view that you can achieve from inside the diamond, I can achieve a corollary and IDENTICAL angle from the outside. There is nothing inherently superior to either inside or outside position in this instance. You may want to brush up on your geometry.



Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding.

You are ending up in exactly the same position outside the diamond at 2B that you would be in if you had buttonhooked inside. But because you didn't buttonhook, you have actually moved a shorter distance and thus it will take you LESS time to get there.

Think about that for a moment.



Agreed.

The slot is the only way to go.



Again, you are demonstrating that you don't really understand the concept of "angle" as it pertains to officiating.

Whether you are in front of or behind the runner, the "angle" is exactly the same. You are simply not used to being outside therefore you feel less comfortable. That doesn't mean that your view is actually any different.

As far as "beating the runner to 2B," it is no more difficult than achieving the same position from roughly the same starting point on a steal play.

I'm afraid what's demonstrated about angles here is that you don't understand the concept of a negative number. These aren't free floating angles in space. Now for some plays I'll agree that the angle negated against the base line is about the same but certainly not for all of them. Maybe if you'd slow down and actually try and talk with Mike instead of trying to demean him you could express your concerns, learn a bunch and possibly even have a positive influence.
________
Lure_into

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm afraid what's demonstrated about angles here is that you don't understand the concept of a negative number. These aren't free floating angles in space.

How in the world are they not?

Around any base or runner is an imaginary 360 degree circle. Each position that you take on the circle has an equivalent position on the opposite side.

The only thing that makes one position favorable to another on any particular play is your ability to move from that point to your next potential position for a subsequent play.

If this secondary consideration is rendered neutral either because movement from Point A to Point B is essentially the same in either scenario, or because you have a partner ahead of you to help out at Point B, then it doesn't matter which of the primary positions that you chose to assume.

Maybe if you'd slow down and actually try and talk with Mike instead of trying to demean him you could express your concerns

I began by having a civil discussion with him over different ideas presented from two national softball organizations, and instead of taking a purely intellectual approach he resorted to inferring that I was lazy, out of shape, and that by daring to question the almighty ASA manual with some new ideas that I should just take my ball and go home.

Maybe if he was better able to defend his positions (literally and metaphorically) without subtle insinuations then we could all have a more civil discourse on this board.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

How in the world are they not?

Around any base or runner is an imaginary 360 degree circle. Each position that you take on the circle has an equivalent position on the opposite side.

The only thing that makes one position favorable to another on any particular play is your ability to move from that point to your next potential position for a subsequent play.

If this secondary consideration is rendered neutral either because movement from Point A to Point B is essentially the same in either scenario, or because you have a partner ahead of you to help out at Point B, then it doesn't matter which of the primary positions that you chose to assume.



I began by having a civil discussion with him over different ideas presented from two national softball organizations, and instead of taking a purely intellectual approach he resorted to inferring that I was lazy, out of shape, and that by daring to question the almighty ASA manual with some new ideas that I should just take my ball and go home.

Maybe if he was better able to defend his positions (literally and metaphorically) without subtle insinuations then we could all have a more civil discourse on this board.

Maybe like this will be more clear. If you're standing 10 feet toward first and toward right of 2nd base, you have a 45 degree angle 1st, to 2nd to you. And you have a 135 degree angle 3rd to 2nd to you. But if you're inside you now have a 45 degree angle for both angles. So clearly they aren't the same.

Now, as to whether Mike was civil with you or not, I wasn't paying that much attention, with no offense intended to him Mike has always seemed gruff and I'm used to it having been here for a long time. You on the other hand are new and without any general personality backlog against which we can file your outburst so it comes across as much more harsh at the instant moment. This is why it's often best to tread carefully when joining a message board.

To my point that your geometry left something to be desired. You replied with "how in the world not". That may just be your personality, but it comes across as attacking because of a message boards tendency to harshen words and my lack of familiarity with you. This is a great place to learn a lot but you won't do it by trying to make the board more confrontational.
________
condos for sale Pattaya

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

Maybe like this will be more clear. If you're standing 10 feet toward first and toward right of 2nd base, you have a 45 degree angle 1st, to 2nd to you. And you have a 135 degree angle 3rd to 2nd to you. But if you're inside you now have a 45 degree angle for both angles. So clearly they aren't the same.

The relationship between two different bases vis a vis your position is not relevant. You are only concerned with your angle in reference to one particular runner or base, and in this instance they would both be exactly the same.

Once you start adding additional factors like another base, this would obviously change your preferred position based on what subsequent action you might have to take on a secondary play. Where your partner is at and what responsibilities he/she might have is also of great concern.

Of course I already stated this, but it's worth repeating for clarity's sake.

[topper]

Originally Posted by youngump

Maybe like this will be more clear. If you're standing 10 feet toward first and toward right of 2nd base, you have a 45 degree angle 1st, to 2nd to you. And you have a 135 degree angle 3rd to 2nd to you. But if you're inside you now have a 45 degree angle for both angles. So clearly they aren't the same.

Clear as mud. The wording in bold has me scratching my head.

Originally Posted by youngump

Now, as to whether Mike was civil with you or not, I wasn't paying that much attention, with no offense intended to him Mike has always seemed gruff and I'm used to it having been here for a long time. You on the other hand are new and without any general personality backlog against which we can file your outburst so it comes across as much more harsh at the instant moment. This is why it's often best to tread carefully when joining a message board.

To my point that your geometry left something to be desired. You replied with "how in the world not". That may just be your personality, but it comes across as attacking because of a message boards tendency to harshen words and my lack of familiarity with you. This is a great place to learn a lot but you won't do it by trying to make the board more confrontational.

In other words, IowaBlue, your "how in the world not", since your "new", is far more offensive to Irish's minions than his condescending tone and familiar name calling (Bubba). I think most of us could see where this thread was heading pretty early on.

FWIW, I agree with you completely and have had similar "discussions" on here. They mostly end just like this. I know there to be some very good umpires on this board that work both ASA and NCAA, but be aware that this is primarily an ASA rules/mechanics/philosophy forum. "Messaging for the masses".