Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpTTS43
I guess I missed that discussion. So why do we get to ignore not only the low strike, but the high strike as well? You seem to be a well versed umpire, so I anticipate your answer.
|
The ball that nips the zone and finishes in or just above the dirt is a problem for umpires, especially those judged by QwesTec and multiple camera angles. Amateurs pick up their habits and it becomes customary to not see those pitches as strikes. It is still considered acceptable to ignore those strikes, unless they are marquee pitchers hurling them. Josh Beckett, Justin Verlander and Barry Zito all have been given the benefit of those calls for their incredible 12-6 dueces. Kerry Wood used to have a devastating 12-6 and got many of those calls.
Coaches claim that they want a big zone but not that call...
wait, only when they are at bat. Many pitching coaches whine about shrinking strike zones and demand that the true zone be called. Do you call strikes when the catcher drops the pitch? Soft gloves it?
I am fortunate to have assignors that appreciate those of us who call strikes. My games have never suffered because of my desire to follow the rules. Conversely, I know a few guys who have lost assignments because they refuse to call anything above the waist or at the knees. If you have been told to ignore the high strike by your assignor, do what you need to do.
I find it pretty funny that some of you continue to think the 'get the call right' or abandonment of the 'expected call' philosophies are my folly. While I am a supporter of these changes and a fan of the evolution of umpiring, I am only reporting what is being done out there. The past CWS was a case study in how umpires are expected to work. The scrutiny being given to televised baseball is growing and efforts to improve umpiring even more so. Calling someone out, even though you know they aren't, is not progress.