Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sm_bbcoach
Since I began this, let me jump back in.....
It appears to me that many call the pitch as it comes through the strike zone. Many call it with the afore mentioned + how the catcher catches it. I am thinking that is as subjective as holding is to football officials. Their own interpretation. I also have read where calling with the catcher in mind makes for better games - less chirping from coaches and fans- , anbd some have advance to higher level games because of these calls.
In reading this thread, I did change my approach last night at the dish. I allowed the catcher to influence balls & strikes calls. It did prove some correct- less chirping from the coaches and fans as I allowed a for sure strike (above the knees at the plate) to be a ball since it did scrape the ground as the C caught it. No one said a word other than, you can miss there and catch the ball Tim (catcher's name).
In all and all, I figure that I am adopting this style of calling balls and strikes. BTW, the game was a good pace with a few more walks that I have had in the past games.
I would like to thank everyone for the opinions!
|
Last night in an adult league baseball game I tried the opposite approach. If the ball was in the strike zone when it crossed the plate I called it a 'strike' regardless of where F2 caught the ball.
Pitching was very good on both sides. Only a couple of complaints early on but by the time the 8th inning came along the losing team F1 was crying like a baby. My zone hadn't changed but as desperation set in (they were down 11-3) so did his dislike of my strike zone. The other F2 seemed to be enjoying my zone.
Earlier in the day I worked bases at a HS varsity game where the PU called the pitch not where F2 caught the ball, much less resistance at that level.