Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Tim, or someone else of extensive experience,
Please explain a reasonable philosophy for this situation.
Catcher sets up outside... calling for a pitch that should be outside the plate. Pitcher 'misses' his mark and the pitch comes down the tube/middle of the plate.
I've had other umpires tell me that they would not call that pitch a strike because the pitcher missed his mark.
What is expected of a top-flight umpire here? I see three options:
1) Does the strike zone move way outside - call a strike when the pitcher hits his mark even though the pitch is not over the plate?
-or-
2) Do I assume the battery has given up opportunity to pitch a strike - If he does hits his mark it will not be over the plate and therefore a ball? If he does not hit his mark, it should also be a ball even if that 'miss' is over the plate.
-or-
3) Should I continue to call balls and strike based upon the position of the ball relative to the batter?
Option #1 does not seem reasonable. Option #2 has merits. But to date, I've always chosen option #3 - no change from any other pitch. Additionally, I do not change my viewing position behind the plate. Should I be considering some other options?
The majority of my ball is High School Varsity and slightly older American Legion. Does the level of ball make a difference on how this scenario should be called?
Thanks in advance for your help.
|
It's up to you. I see this degrading into another thread where people accuse others of not calling pitches "by the rules." What the heck.
If a catcher sets up outside and has to stab back across the plate to catch a pitch that barely catches the white of the plate, I'm likely going to call it a ball at any level I work (which pretty much starts at HS varsity).
It's no different than the curve ball that may catch the knee at the front of the plate and is caught by the catcher with his glove at the ground. You may choose to call that a strike, but just try that in a good HS or college game.