View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 18, 2011, 01:04pm
Skahtboi Skahtboi is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo View Post
It has occurred to me that I am a Pitcher's Umpire. Not because I set out to do that, but in reviewing my calls, and my own interpretation of the strike zone, I think this is the case.

I give good corners on belt-high pitches (flatten/widen).

I think this is consistent with basic umpire mechanics. For example
> a Strike is usually called with loud emphasis (encouragement for P), while a Ball is even sometimes barely verbalized.
> We are in the business of getting Outs, not generating baserunners.
> I don't understand why one (i.e. Hitter's Umpire) would squeeze the zone, by calling Balls making it easier for Offense and more difficult for Defense.

Curious to hear thoughts about how others perceive themselves, and how they perceive others.

Also subjecting myself to criticism in case this is wrong thinking.
I consider myself an umpire. Period. I favor neither the offense nor the defense in my actions, at least consciously. I attempt to call the strike zone as it is defined, though of course, I am human and am prone to mistake.

Yes, there is an emphasis on a called strike. That is the nature of the business. However, the ball should be called in a normal, conversational, voice level. Never should it be "barely vocalized," or, as I have seen more than I care to mention, not vocalized at all. Every pitch is something, and it should be clearly noted by the umpire.

You have already recanted your comment about "being in the business to get outs," so I will take it that you did mean that somewhat tongue in cheek. However, there are many people who believe that is our objective, so I do take exception to that statement.

It appears, by your description using the number pad analogy, that you do squeeze the strike zone. 1,3,7,9 are all strikes, and should be called. Beyond the realm of 4 and 6 you have a ball, there is no strike zone "extended," or at least that I have heard of. Rather than extend certain parts of your strike zone, why not work on incorporating all of the strike zone as it is written? I know that I still work, after all these years, on trying to call a book zone, and not give up too much or too little on the bottom end, since that seems to be the hardest to set solidly. If we all focus on trying to enforce all the rules as written, including doing our best to call the strike zone as written, then we establish the balance in the game that we are there to insure. None of this "pro-offense/pro-defense" stuff.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote