Drop 3rd strike mechanic

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

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.

This simply isn't the case because there are all sorts of anchoring factors. The direction of the throw for example. Now I'm not commenting on the specific play as I don't really have much there. But suppose it were a steal. Do you really think 45 inside is as good a position as 45 outside?
________
Zoloft Settlement Information

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

This simply isn't the case because there are all sorts of anchoring factors. The direction of the throw for example. Now I'm not commenting on the specific play as I don't really have much there. But suppose it were a steal. Do you really think 45 inside is as good a position as 45 outside?

The correct answer is neither. You don't want a 45 degree angle on a steal play, you want 90 degrees with the runner's path to the bag, at the point that the runner and the bag intersect, or to the runner's path at the time a fielder is attempting a tag. And in that case, yes, either inside or outside position will suffice.

Let me give you an example that incorporates many of the ideas involved with this thread, and it is particularly appropriate as I believe it is a "difficult" mechanic that ASA actually endorses:

You are the base umpire in a 2 man system. No runners on base. The batter hits a sharp, sinking liner to RF that takes one hop and is then fielded. In nearly all levels of FP you are likely to have a potential 9-3 put-out attempt.

Now you have basically two options here. You can either attempt to get your normal 45 degree angle with 1B from fair territory, but the downside is obviously that the throw will be coming from behind you and you will lose sight of the ball.

The preferred position in this scenario would be to move to foul ground and obtain the VERY SAME 45 degree angle with 1B. This is an excellent position to see the play, and I can't recall ever missing a call from this spot.

Obviously, the major concern here is that your partner must be alert enough to diagnose the developing situation and bust out to at least the pitching rubber in order to seen a potential play at 2B.

This is an example of how what your partner can/is likely to do will impact the position that you choose on the field. Both angles involved here are IDENTICAL. Each position will have accompanying positive and negative attributes, but the ANGLE is the same, and indeed, as long as you are not hit with the throw or alter it's path, your ability to call THAT INITIAL PLAY will be exactly the same from either position.

What is different from each spot on the field is your ability to adjust and then cover another impending play. Again, if you have a reliable partner, the decision becomes obvious.

Have you ever worked 1-umpire slowpitch? With nobody on and an infield ground ball with a potential play at first, what are you going to do? You should move into fair territory and attempt to gain a 45 degree angle with first. This is EXACTLY THE SAME ANGLE as in the above two situations, only from yet ANOTHER potential position on the field. Three different positions around the same base resulting in three IDENTICAL angles.

As you can see, the only way softball can work with 1 or 2 umpires is precisely BECAUSE the angles are always there, only our position on the field, relative to our next possible responsibility, changes.

Obviously, you always need to be cognizant of how the impending play develops, how the angles change as the runner/field positions change, and how you must move accordingly in order to see all the pieces of the puzzle, so that you are never "blocked out" or screened.

Umpiring actually involves 3 dimensional space, so that sometimes you can actually use an "over the top" view to help you out in certain situations.

Hopefully all of that was clear enough.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

...the pitching rubber...

i was with you up to here.

[IowaBlue]

Obviously it's best if you can get closer than that, but not everyone can get there depending on what level of ball you are working and the quality of your partner.

Either way, anywhere in that vicinity is a heck of lot better than where the base umpire is, and as someone that has had partners fail to recognize this situation as it is occurring and leaving the play at 2nd completely uncovered, really getting to anywhere and at least acting like you know what's going on is acceptable at most levels.

And really, the pitching rubber is a decent "holding zone" position in this instance. Remember, we have not yet determined that the BR is in fact going to attempt to get to 2nd, so really not a lot of reason to move all the way into the primary position at 2B if there is unlikely to be a play there. You can then adjust your distance accordingly depending on what the runner does.

[IRISHMAFIA]

On the inside, and umpire can attain a better angle at 1b & 2b easier (one of your favorite incentives ) simply because the available paths to get an angle. Do you sacrifice distance for angle? Every time it is necessary to see the call.

Tell you what. You work a game on a 60' diamond, I'll work one on an 80' diamond (and yes, I've done' this a few times). FP or SP, you choose, and I'll bet I attain as good a position on every play as you, run less and not miss a call.

Look, you don't like ASA mechanics, fine, don't work ASA. And as much as you think they are antiquated, I can assure you that with 45 years of experience in baseball and softball, there is nothing hard or inhibiting about them. NCAA has a limited market and believe what they use works for their game. That's fine, too.

BTW, to those going to OKC, you may be find one of the subjects quite interesting.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BTW, to those going to OKC, you may be find one of the subjects quite interesting.

Which subject might that be?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Which subject might that be?

Cannot say without giving up a source and I ain't doin' dat!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

The correct answer is neither. You don't want a 45 degree angle on a steal play, you want 90 degrees with the runner's path to the bag, at the point that the runner and the bag intersect, or to the runner's path at the time a fielder is attempting a tag. And in that case, yes, either inside or outside position will suffice.

Let me give you an example that incorporates many of the ideas involved with this thread, and it is particularly appropriate as I believe it is a "difficult" mechanic that ASA actually endorses:

You are the base umpire in a 2 man system. No runners on base. The batter hits a sharp, sinking liner to RF that takes one hop and is then fielded. In nearly all levels of FP you are likely to have a potential 9-3 put-out attempt.

Now you have basically two options here. You can either attempt to get your normal 45 degree angle with 1B from fair territory, but the downside is obviously that the throw will be coming from behind you and you will lose sight of the ball.

The preferred position in this scenario would be to move to foul ground and obtain the VERY SAME 45 degree angle with 1B. This is an excellent position to see the play, and I can't recall ever missing a call from this spot.

Obviously, the major concern here is that your partner must be alert enough to diagnose the developing situation and bust out to at least the pitching rubber in order to seen a potential play at 2B.

This is an example of how what your partner can/is likely to do will impact the position that you choose on the field. Both angles involved here are IDENTICAL. Each position will have accompanying positive and negative attributes, but the ANGLE is the same, and indeed, as long as you are not hit with the throw or alter it's path, your ability to call THAT INITIAL PLAY will be exactly the same from either position.

What is different from each spot on the field is your ability to adjust and then cover another impending play. Again, if you have a reliable partner, the decision becomes obvious.

Have you ever worked 1-umpire slowpitch? With nobody on and an infield ground ball with a potential play at first, what are you going to do? You should move into fair territory and attempt to gain a 45 degree angle with first. This is EXACTLY THE SAME ANGLE as in the above two situations, only from yet ANOTHER potential position on the field. Three different positions around the same base resulting in three IDENTICAL angles.

As you can see, the only way softball can work with 1 or 2 umpires is precisely BECAUSE the angles are always there, only our position on the field, relative to our next possible responsibility, changes.

Obviously, you always need to be cognizant of how the impending play develops, how the angles change as the runner/field positions change, and how you must move accordingly in order to see all the pieces of the puzzle, so that you are never "blocked out" or screened.

Umpiring actually involves 3 dimensional space, so that sometimes you can actually use an "over the top" view to help you out in certain situations.

Hopefully all of that was clear enough.

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that as a matter of geometry you are simply not right. I'm not a great umpire and I'm not going to argue mechanics as I'm just not there yet. But as far as math goes, I can tear it up. The angles are simply not the same. Let me try once more.

Your play at first is great for an example. There are 4 spots that we could call 45 degrees. Let's call them A,B,C, and D starting from the foul position past first base and working clockwise. If you are in A, you have a 90 to the throw and a 135 to the path of the runner. If you are in B, you have a 0 to the throw and a 45 to the path of the runner. If you are in C, you have a 45 to the path of the runner and a 90 to the throw. If you are in D, you have a 180 to the throw and a 135 to the path of the runner.

Now it's possible that all 4 of those by chance offer the same benefits (though as you've noted they clearly do not, having a 180 to the throw being what you noted.) You can make the case that two angles offer the same benefits but when you try and use geometry to get there you have to understand that you can't just invert your frame of reference and pretend you have the same angle.

One last attempt to explain the difference. Being in A or D you called the same angle. Now if the throw to first comes in and pulls the fielder toward foul territory you'll note that the angles change in very different ways.
________
PlaifulKittie

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that as a matter of geometry you are simply not right. I'm not a great umpire and I'm not going to argue mechanics as I'm just not there yet. But as far as math goes, I can tear it up. The angles are simply not the same. Let me try once more.

Your play at first is great for an example. There are 4 spots that we could call 45 degrees. Let's call them A,B,C, and D starting from the foul position past first base and working clockwise. If you are in A, you have a 90 to the throw and a 135 to the path of the runner. If you are in B, you have a 0 to the throw and a 45 to the path of the runner. If you are in C, you have a 45 to the path of the runner and a 90 to the throw. If you are in D, you have a 180 to the throw and a 135 to the path of the runner.

Now it's possible that all 4 of those by chance offer the same benefits (though as you've noted they clearly do not, having a 180 to the throw being what you noted.) You can make the case that two angles offer the same benefits but when you try and use geometry to get there you have to understand that you can't just invert your frame of reference and pretend you have the same angle.

You are failing to grasp the simplicity of the concept being presented by introducing variables that are not relevant.

It does not matter if you are 90 degrees from the throw in most instances. That is an antiquated idea and of little value. Obviously, you need to be able to see the ball and avoid being hit by it, or a "180" as you like to call it.

On a force play at 1st, the only thing that is relevant in order to make that particular call is your angle with respect to the BASE, and nothing else. Everything that happens in that play is going to happen at the base. The entire rest of the field ceases to matter at that point. There is even a school of thought, among some VERY high level umpires (multiple Divison 1 College World Series appearances) that you don't even need to watch or pay attention to the throw anymore, just focus on the base.

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.

Being in A or D you called the same angle. Now if the throw to first comes in and pulls the fielder toward foul territory you'll note that the angles change in very different ways.

A pulled foot, bad throw, or swipe tag can ruin your angle on nearly any play from virtually any position on the field. There is no spot that is immune to this, where you can see everything with crystal clarity. This is why you need to be cognizant of the changing play and be prepared to adjust your angle accordingly, as the play develops.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

You are failing to grasp the simplicity of the concept being presented by introducing variables that are not relevant.

It does not matter if you are 90 degrees from the throw in most instances. That is an antiquated idea and of little value. Obviously, you need to be able to see the ball and avoid being hit by it, or a "180" as you like to call it.

On a force play at 1st, the only thing that is relevant in order to make that particular call is your angle with respect to the BASE, and nothing else. Everything that happens in that play is going to happen at the base. The entire rest of the field ceases to matter at that point. There is even a school of thought, among some VERY high level umpires (multiple Divison 1 College World Series appearances) that you don't even need to watch or pay attention to the throw anymore, just focus on the base.

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.



A pulled foot, bad throw, or swipe tag can ruin your angle on nearly any play from virtually any position on the field. There is no spot that is immune to this, where you can see everything with crystal clarity. This is why you need to be cognizant of the changing play and be prepared to adjust your angle accordingly, as the play develops.

You're failing to grasp my argument for reasons that aren't clear. The base is a point. There is no such thing as an angle to the base. You can contend that any of the four angles which are symmetric about the base lines give the same view. I don't really care though it seems unlikely to me but it is interesting and might be right. But what you cannot do without being analytically wrong, is to contend that geometry dictates you are right because the angles are the same. As I've shown, it does not. (I mean analytically wrong in the formal sense here.)
________
How to roll blunts

[ronald]

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.

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by ronald

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.

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

You're failing to grasp my argument for reasons that aren't clear. The base is a point. There is no such thing as an angle to the base. You can contend that any of the four angles which are symmetric about the base lines give the same view. I don't really care though it seems unlikely to me but it is interesting and might be right. But what you cannot do without being analytically wrong, is to contend that geometry dictates you are right because the angles are the same. As I've shown, it does not. (I mean analytically wrong in the formal sense here.)

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Easy, guys... Easy... I left my paddle at home, so don't make me run back there and get it, because I'll totally turn this car around.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

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