Drop 3rd strike mechanic
 

Non NCAA.
On a dropped 3rd strike non swinging with no one first, is it the proper mechanic to punch the batter out in this situation or should it be a signal srtike? thanks

Wouldn't it be strike/out and then a safe signal?

NON NCAA. It would be a strike call then signal he out and hold the out signal. And thats why verbals are not suppose to be near "OUT" 2 syllables that are somewhere near "strike-three" so there can't be confusion that the PU called the batter out.

What am I missing? The batter is not out in this situation (dropped third called strike, 1st not occupied), so why are we concerned with punching the batter out or holding an out signal.

Seems to me we have a strike to signal, and no out to call or signal. Newest NCAA mechanic is signal safe; has any other association suggested any signal for a batter-runner that has not been put out, nor has an out been attempted yet??

Maybe the question is this: On a non-swinging, uncaught third strike, should the umpire signal the strike as he might any other called third strike (pull the ripcord, extra emphasis, etc.) or give the usual hammer that he would on a called strike one or two?

(At least, I think that is the question. :confused: )

Yes. Major League Baseball! :D

Bretman you are correct with your interpatation of what I was trying to say. Im sure I know the answer to my own question, but in some past lower level games, Ive a been a little quick to punch the batter out only to realize the catcher has dropped the ball. Other than the NCAA new mechanic, I was wonder how others convey to younger players that was the third strike.

I don't know if this is the "official", or "documented" or "prefered" mechanic, but...

If it's a called third strike, I give the same exact signal I give on any other called third strike- whether the ball is caught or not. I stand up, "pull the rip cord" and say, "Strike three!". I never add, "The batter is out" as part of my third strike call (unless first is occupied with less than two outs and the batter starts to run, in which case she really is out).

So, I'm not really "calling the batter out". I'm just calling the strike like I normally would. The ball being caught or not and the batter-runner advancing to first is a separate element of the play that is up to the players to figure out on their own.

With that clarification, I agree with Bret. It is still a called third strike, so doing something different than a caught third strike is (to me) the same as changing a signal when a base is missed. Your emphatic third strike signal only makes it a called third strike; it is up to the teams to determine if the batter is out based on the rules, not based on an umpire directing their play.

We all need to realize that the NCAA coaches have significant influence on the NCAA rules and even NCAA umpire mechanics; and that many of them firmly believe and want that the umpires should have no judgment available on issues the coaches don't grasp, and announce and indicate all situations so the coaches know how to react. They have systematically changed items that require them to understand the game and make judgments.

Rules examples; 1) signal and announce "no tag" when runner misses home and catcher misses the tag, 2) batter not pulling the bat back from squaring to bunt becomes a strike without an attempt. You could add the pressure and influence on ASA and other organizations to match their pitching distance (43') because they didn't want to have to actually make a judgment if a pitcher could successfully adjust from 40' to 43', and to allow steel cleats so they weren't the first step in that use (meaning they might be held liable for failing to properly teach/coach a player on the safe use). Mechanics examples; 1) using the safe signal to indicate "no call" when no call always has meant "no call", 2) declaring "batter is out" when batter is not a batter-runner on a dropped third strike (rather than teaching their catchers which play to make in a given situation), 3) base umpires on the line to indicate "catch" or "no catch", and now 4) the plate umpire to up the ante by adding a superfluous (IMHO) "no catch" safe signal.

This may be what the NCAA coaches want, to reduce the umpires to signal machines for their benefit, and to eliminate as much judgment as possible. That doesn't mean all these are good for the game of softball, or necessarily good mechanics.

Steve, I think you applying the coaches' influence on rule into mechanics unjustly. I'm going to use a bit of speculation with what I'm about to say (as I'm not sure what is discussed at the coaches' meeting about mechanics). I don't think the coaches really know what we are signaling most of the time. Think about this: how many actually see us call a delayed deal ball on an obstruction or catcher's obstruction?

In reference to your numbers above:
(Rules)
1) This is an age old problem at all levels of softball. What is the difference between saying "no tag" to "delaying slightly"?
2) This is just a definition of a swing, that having the bat in the zone. I don't think this was to reduce our judgment; maybe this had to do with wanting catchers a better shot at a steal of second?
(mechanics)
1) My guess is the "no infraction" came from a someone in the umpire ranks rather than coaches. I'm thinking somewhere in the west :D
Personally, I like it and wish other organizations would adopt it.
2)This came as a result of the MLB play in the playoffs. It was implemented the following year. You only use this when necessary, because you are declaring a rule.
3) the D3K signal coaches rarely see. I personally like this mechanic, and it has become useful ways other than intended. For example, I had, what looked to me as PU, a foul tip (with two strikes). But before I signaled/ruled, I looked up to my BU who was pointed down (defensive coach wasn't happy). Another play where this could have been used was runner on second, two strikes and check swing on a ball in the dirt (less than two outs). I didn't have a swing, but my BU did. He gives me a point, and the situation works out better than it did (bottom 8, one run game, conference championship, regional berth on the line). I've also had an instance in an ASA national MFP where a batter scored on a D3K and this signal would have been very useful.
Again, I like this and wish other organizations would adopt it (even suggested it to my regional UIC).
4) Not sure where or how this change came about, but if from a coach, he or she must have been really burned by it. Most confusing because there was not some big D3K that everyone saw.

In conclusion, I think the coaches, as a group, are not aware of what we do or why we do it (yes, there are exceptions). For example, how many coaches are confused as to why we check swing to the U on the line? Don't you think coaches would change that (if they could change anything)?

So I don't tend to sell a dropped third strike and this isn't enough to convince me I should. I'm going to be tipping the result anyway, because my mask is off and I'm moving away from home plate. How is it more of a tip if I just call strike three than do that?
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

Mask off and moving away from the plate is generally not seen by the two most affected players; batter and catcher. Signal difference not seen either, but the verbal difference on a called strike three would be an early warning system, I would think. Even to the coaches that don't know our signals.

Many are not; absolutely true. The exceptions, however, tend to be the influential ones, that serve on Rules Committees, that are listened to by those that do serve. I have heard this "influence" from the mouth of the umpire out west of whom I believe you refer.

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!! That they may be helpful doesn't lessen the substantial influence the coaches have on the NCAA game. I seriously doubt that any coach or group of coaches has a similar affect to the rules or the umpire mechanics of any other association.

We will know more clearly when the next rules change cycle tells us if they eliminate illegal pitch rules instead of continuing to support enforcement.

Which is why I believe the mechanic inane. This is a knee-jerk reaction the MLB used when they had an incident a couple years ago, but even with that signal, the same play would have occurred. And, yes, it is a mechanic driven by the management side of the foul line. Even 10U catchers know to throw to 1B if there is a question and they see the B/BR heading to 1B when that avenue is available.

And, again, the BR is NOT safe, just not put out. IOW, the BR is in jeopardy and that is not safe.

In FP I used the same signal for every strike, which is why I previously noted strike/out. Same signal, but for a third strike, it is the inflection of my voice that differentiates that call.

They only support enforcement of the illegal pitch rules on the other teams pitcher!:eek:

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

Flash back to last spring.

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.

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

Really? Tell us what makes you laugh.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

:rolleyes: That's hilarious.

Okay, good for you.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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

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?

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.

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.

It's also true.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Yeah, okay. :D

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Didn't think you did.

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

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

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

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.

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

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".

Toward Right field I mean. ~14 feet out at 45 degrees measured counterclockwise from the line running from first to second.

And yes, when someone is new there words will be interpreted differently than when they are established. This may be suboptimal but it's still reality.

As for this being primarily an ASA board I think that's just by the questions asked. I've never heard someone given grief for asking about a different ruleset. (Unless it was baseball)
________
Live Sex

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

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 was with you up to here.:eek:

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.

On the inside, and umpire can attain a better angle at 1b & 2b easier (one of your favorite incentives :D ) 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.

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

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.

I guess you don't work much men's fastpitch.

You aren't the first person to share this point of view, and not the first one that Mike has rebutted. This conversation has been ongoing for some time, probably started at the time the first NCAA manual was published. And it isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

Most of us who work ASA (and NFHS, since they virtually share the same mechanics book) and NCAA extensively has solved the rift by working the mechanics prescribed by the organization that is on our uniform. We realized it wasn't such a big deal, we do our job, and have a few beverages after the game. We critique each other, and strive to get better with every game.

Personally, I think there are advantages to staying outside than employing the generalized "inside/outside theory" as stated in the ASA manual (You refer to this as "rimming," but don't google that term). I also believe that being "close" on a tag play is necessary and you are not smothering the play.

But why is there differences? As Mike said, you have different philosophies and training goals with each organization. The NCAA is a "closed shop" and can demand advanced mechanics. If you don't grasp them, you don't move on (much akin to college or graduate level education). The emphasis is on thinking and reading the play and I can tell you that not all NCAA umpires grasp this concept (you don't "stay outside for the sake of staying outside). The ASA is dealing with the masses, and created mechanics for everyone (akin to teaching high school level classes where everyone can graduate). Therefore, simple generalities and easy to follow rules exist.

Like I said, most of us here in the Keystone state just don't sweat it. As someone who trains umpires by three different mechanics manuals, I stress the manual of the sponsoring organization, and I'm very careful not to editorialize during a clinic. And that's my advice to you, don't hold an organization hostage. That would almost be like putting yourself above the game.

I think we have hijacked this threat good enough, I won't even get into the flaws of the GD plate stance.:D

Which subject might that be?

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

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

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.

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.

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. :p

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.

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

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".