|
Before I started umpiring I coached HS baseball for 13 years. As a coach my teams won 7 district titles, 4 sectional titles and two trips to the state tournament. As a coach I appreciated umpires that called the zone. I understood that if I taught my pitchers to make quality pitches, then they would be successful. Also, if I taught my hitters the strike zone then they could be successful. When umpires would "expand" the zone to meet their own needs, it put my trained hitters at a disadvantage.
I come to umpiring with this mindset. Equity for both pitcher and hitter. I appreciate the comments that I am recieving, but expanding my zone is not a comfortable idea.
You guys preach that we need to call the book, ie gorilla arm balks, etc. but are willing to go outside the book to create new dimensions for the zone. You are right--I don't get it. Why do you do it? To eliminate a game with alot of walks or take 3 hours. Well, if the coaches taught there pitchers how to throw strikes this would not be a problem. Call the zone defined in the book.
Its kinda like letting kids have poor grades and continue to play athletics. If we don't demand more from our kids, how are they going to improve? If I reward pitchers when they don't earn it, then what am I teaching?
Maybe one of the reasons for inadequate pitching in the professional levels is because they were allowed to get away with so much as amateurs.
|