U1 positioning

[ricka56]

Seems like every clinic I go to I get dinged on being too close to 1B as U1. They have me so far back that if there is a pulled foot sitch (like in the video), there is not enough time to get enough steps in to get any angle on the play. I like where this U1 is on this play and think that the advantage of being closer (than what is being taught today) outweigh the disadvantages. 

[maineump]

I agree with you.

A trick I use is start 10 feet behind 1st baseman (I adjust with him), on the hit take a few steps TOWARDS the ball (generally speaking) and adjust to the throw. Easy to pick up the pulled foot, and the adjustment is usually only a step to see the foot.

I believe that there is such a thing of being too close - if 1B is playing way up (even or closer) and the ball goes to the left side of the IF, then I step towards 2B and the ball.

Edited October 28, 2015 by maineump
clarify

[grayhawk]

That was a frickin GREAT call.  F3 stretching right at U1, and he sees that a normal read step won't suffice and get's himself into a great position to see the pulled foot.  While many would criticize that he's moving at critical moment - that's better than being blocked out completely while being set.

[Thunderheads]

Would the read of a poor throw, and a step towards the line have helped here also?

[grayhawk]

Would the read of a poor throw, and a step towards the line have helped here also?

It certainly would be better than staying where he was.  But I still like what he did, especially in a 2 man system.  By getting a better angle further inside, if the ball gets away, then BU would definitely be out of the runner's way, and able to stay in front of the BR in the case he attempts to get to second on the overthrow.

Taking a step towards the line potentially puts BU in the BR's way, and behind him heading to second.

[Thunderheads]

It certainly would be better than staying where he was.  But I still like what he did, especially in a 2 man system.  By getting a better angle further inside, if the ball gets away, then BU would definitely be out of the runner's way, and able to stay in front of the BR in the case he attempts to get to second on the overthrow.

Taking a step towards the line potentially puts BU in the BR's way, and behind him heading to second.

that was my thought as well, but wanted to throw it out there

[grayhawk]

that was my thought as well, but wanted to throw it out there

The other benefit of moving inside here is that it gives BU a great view of whether the BR makes an attempt to second.  Moving to the line makes seeing this more difficult.

[JaxRolo]

About 8-10 feet from first baseman so you can see his shoelaces and have a better view of a short hop catch no catch.

[noumpere]

Would the read of a poor throw, and a step towards the line have helped here also?

If the throw goes to the (fielder's) right, you go to the (fielder's) left.  If the throw goes to the left, you go to the right (unless the throw is so far off that F3 goes to the part of the base facing home -- and that seems to be less likely than going to the outfield side of the base)

[ricka56]

About 8-10 feet from first baseman so you can see his shoelaces and have a better view of a short hop catch no catch.

Do you mean initially or when he's taking a throw at the bag? I don't have a problem with my initial position...it varies with F3's position. I have a problem being told that I need to be at least 20 away from the play at 1B, so as not miss anything. Being 20 feet away gives you no chance to make any meaningful adjustment for a play like this. 

[JaxRolo]

Do you mean initially or when he's taking a throw at the bag? I don't have a problem with my initial position...it varies with F3's position. I have a problem being told that I need to be at least 20 away from the play at 1B, so as not miss anything. Being 20 feet away gives you no chance to make any meaningful adjustment for a play like this. 

My bad. Initial position.

And yes for a play 20 feet is way way way too far!

[Haid D' Salaami]

I agree with you.

A trick I use is start 10 feet behind 1st baseman (I adjust with him), on the hit take a few steps TOWARDS the ball (generally speaking) and adjust to the throw. Easy to pick up the pulled foot, and the adjustment is usually only a step to see the foot.

I believe that there is such a thing of being too close - if 1B is playing way up (even or closer) and the ball goes to the left side of the IF, then I step towards 2B and the ball.

That is what is taught by every umpire clinic and school for about 2-3 decades.

 

Easy to pick up the pulled foot... so you never had a pulled foot issue?

[maineump]

That is what is taught by every umpire clinic and school for about 2-3 decades.

 

Easy to pick up the pulled foot... so you never had a pulled foot issue?

Believe it or not, I have never heard it at a clinic - I picked it up from a partner. Took his advise and kept working on it until it became second nature. He told me it was a 'trick' he had picked up along the way from another guy.

I also use the 10' positioning when working 3B. Generally that is 10' behind the base, as most play in. It makes a shorter route to cover 2B when needed.

I have noticed that too many guys are too far away, when watching for a pick-off (in multi-man systems).

[maven]

Force plays, any base: 18–21 feet, something like 90° from the direction of the throw (most observers I have encountered can live with 15 feet).

Tag plays, any base: 6–8 feet, something more than 90° from the direction of the throw ("everything coming at you"), but without getting straightlined. (A BU with multiple runners won't be able to be in the ideal position and should prioritize angle over distance; on a steal of 2B, we can get the distance right but not the angle.)

These distances are taught to pro umpires for a reason, namely that they are the best place to be for most plays of that kind. The umpire schools have statisticians evaluate different mechanics and correlate their respective degrees of success over literally thousands of plays. The science, while perhaps no guarantee, is better than one guy's anecdotal evidence. Since all mechanics involve compromise and playing the odds, following the best current mechanic is going to result in the highest probability of getting any given call right.

Using a type of play that happens less than 1% of the time as a rationale to move to an inferior position generally yields poor umpiring, since it diminishes the probability of getting it right. This point is true even if in that a one-in-500 play, we happen to be in a better position and get that one right. I'd rather miss one in 500 (0.2% wrong) than 5 in 50 (10% wrong).

[ricka56]

Force plays, any base: 18–21 feet, something like 90° from the direction of the throw (most observers I have encountered can live with 15 feet).

Using a type of play that happens less than 1% of the time as a rationale to move to an inferior position generally yields poor umpiring, since it diminishes the probability of getting it right. This point is true even if in that a one-in-500 play, we happen to be in a better position and get that one right. I'd rather miss one in 500 (0.2% wrong) than 5 in 50 (10% wrong).

While I would dispute the suggestion that a near pulled foot at 1B occurs less than 1% of the time, I'd like to know about the 10% plays that give you have a better chance of getting right at 18-21 than you would from 10 feet away ?  What kind of plays are included in your 10% (5/50) plays ? 

[maven]

I do not have access to the empirical research behind proper mechanics, any more than I have access to the research behind the belief that the sun fuses hydrogen into helium at 27M°. But I believe both sets of data exist and warrant their respective conclusions.

The percentages in my post are for illustration only, and I was not referencing any specific type of play: I will not use a rare play to justify using a non-standard mechanic that puts me out of position for the vast majority of plays.

If you have no empirical data, why would you dispute the claim (which I did not make) that a pulled foot happens less than 1% of the time? The most you could claim is that it seems, without data, to be more than 1% of plays you have officiated. But that's exactly the kind of anecdotal argument that I think we should get away from: why build proper mechanics around how it seems to you (or me, or any one guy)? With all the data we have, why should any one person's experience trump the data?

[maineump]

The basic positioning stuff we do all the time. No matter if you like further away (20') or close-up (10-15'). There are pros and cons to both I am sure. The 1%ers come with experience and good basic skills to see the play. Sometimes we are blocked, sometimes the play just blows up in our faces - either way we need to make the call.

At our levels, find what works really well for you, and do it. You can be taught a method that works well for the other guy and go with it, because that is what is taught, or you can take the 'intent of the mechanic' and use the same principles and adjust it to work for your style. We are not all 20 years old any more, and in a 2-man system you might have to cheat a little in order to get in position.

Talk with guys that have been to the most updated mechanics sessions, listen to what they have to say, try what they show you and make adjustments to make it work for you.

[ricka56]

 

I do not have access to the empirical research behind proper mechanics, any more than I have access to the research behind the belief that the sun fuses hydrogen into helium at 27M°. But I believe both sets of data exist and warrant their respective conclusions. Solar chemistry data probably hasn't changed significantly in aeons. Baseball data changes more frequently. There probably used to be data supporting the use of 1BLX for a play at the plate. The game changed, the data changed and so did the mechanics. More athletic F3s, faster runners and IR have changed the game...perhaps the data supporting 20 feet away has changed too. So, yes, I guess I am challenging current data, that you have such blind faith in. 

The percentages in my post are for illustration only, and I was not referencing any specific type of play: I will not use a rare play to justify using a non-standard mechanic that puts me out of position for the vast majority of plays. I agree...what we may disagree on is which is the majority/minority

If you have no empirical data, why would you dispute the claim (which I did not make...and I was carerful not to say that you had) that a pulled foot happens less than 1% of the time? The most you could claim is that it seems, without data, to be more than 1% of plays you have officiated. you're missing the point of my question...see below 

l wasn't asking for the data for each "other than routine" play at 1B. I was asking for examples (a list) of which types of plays would require being further back to have a better chance of getting right. I'll give two:
1. The 1985 WS Denkinger play (not picking on DD, he has shown class beyond expectation). It is an example where greater distance would have improved the chances of getting that call correct. Generally it is a case where no-sound-gloving/tag/touch are happening near the same time. Being too close on a play like this reduces the chances of getting the call right.
2. F3 bobbles the gloving of a throw. Being too close could reduce the chances of seeing the bobble and missing the call. 

Counter that with plays where being closer is an advantage (the possible pulled foot, and your run of the mill banger). If data supported that 20 feet away from 1B was best, then the sum of those occurrences would out-weigh the sum of occurrences of plays where 10 feet away was an advantage.

We don't have any way to count occurrences, but we can list plays that fall in each category and give the current 20 foot convention the whiff test...albeit anecdotally.

 

 

[Haid D' Salaami]

Believe it or not, I have never heard it at a clinic - I picked it up from a partner. Took his advise and kept working on it until it became second nature. He told me it was a 'trick' he had picked up along the way from another guy.

I also use the 10' positioning when working 3B. Generally that is 10' behind the base, as most play in. It makes a shorter route to cover 2B when needed.

I have noticed that too many guys are too far away, when watching for a pick-off (in multi-man systems).

This is going to come out mean sounding... sorry Mods..

 

Maybe you should go to a better clinic. we base umpires should be no closer than 10 feet from the base, and 6-8 feet from the fielder and adjust with him.

 

2nd thing... Umpire school do not have a statistician to tell them about plays.. that was really funny. 

[lawump]

 

 The 1985 WS Denkinger play (not picking on DD, he has shown class beyond expectation). It is an example where greater distance would have improved the chances of getting that call correct. Generally it is a case where no-sound-gloving/tag/touch are happening near the same time. Being too close on a play like this reduces the chances of getting the call right.

 

 

Agreed!  The problem with the Denkinger play, and the Joyce perfect game play...both plays are very similar, is that (and Denkinger has publicly stated this) they could not hear the ball hitting the glove.  In these plays, this was due either to the crowd noise, the fact that it was a "soft toss" (and the ball did not "pop" the glove, or a combination of both.)  In both situations, the crowds were going crazy as it was the bottom of the ninth inning with a chance to have a champion crowned in one game and a chance to see a perfect game in the other game.  In hindsight, this is the one time (the 1%) where the "watch the bag, hear the ball hit the glove" mechanic utterly fails.  What both umpires should have done is backed up and tried to get the entire play at first base in their field of vision.  Frankly, in both plays everyone in the stadium who did not use proper umpire mechanics (fans, announcers, players) clearly saw the play and what the correct call should have been...it was only the umpire in each play who was too close that missed the call.

[ricka56]

Agreed!  The problem with the Denkinger play, and the Joyce perfect game play...both plays are very similar, is that (and Denkinger has publicly stated this) they could not hear the ball hitting the glove.  In these plays, this was due either to the crowd noise, the fact that it was a "soft toss" (and the ball did not "pop" the glove, or a combination of both.)  In both situations, the crowds were going crazy as it was the bottom of the ninth inning with a chance to have a champion crowned in one game and a chance to see a perfect game in the other game.  In hindsight, this is the one time (the 1%) where the "watch the bag, hear the ball hit the glove" mechanic utterly fails.  What both umpires should have done is backed up and tried to get the entire play at first base in their field of vision.  Frankly, in both plays everyone in the stadium who did not use proper umpire mechanics (fans, announcers, players) clearly saw the play and what the correct call should have been...it was only the umpire in each play who was too close that missed the call.

When I first started umpiring, I was taught that you wanted to stay back similarly on plays at the plate because if you were too close you couldn't see both tag and touch when they were separated by a yard or more. Was that just mis-information that I was given or was that something taught at the pro school level at one time ?  

[lawump]

When I first started umpiring, I was taught that you wanted to stay back similarly on plays at the plate because if you were too close you couldn't see both tag and touch when they were separated by a yard or more. Was that just mis-information that I was given or was that something taught at the pro school level at one time ?  

I was taught to be at the edge (either just on the dirt or just off) of the circle.  That was 1997.  Definitely not what they're practicing today in MLB.

[ricka56]

I was taught to be at the edge (either just on the dirt or just off) of the circle.  That was 1997.  Definitely not what they're practicing today in MLB.

It took me awhile to "get it" ...  the change of positioning for plays at HP. But now I love it when I go with F2 and actually witness the daylight between R3/F2's mitt instead of having to guess from where I used to take the play.

In the same way the play at the plate mechanics have changed, I think those leading in umpire training ought to consider changing the distance U1 takes the play at 1B. Though I have no data, IMO, the 1% plays (previously discussed) need the greater distance, but the other 99% could be taken closer and whatever of that percentage you want to give  plays where read steps are needed, being closer would be a big advantage.

Note: For those with the need to nit-pick. I admit those percentages are WAG estimates.