Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp
Who decided that umpires shouldn't say "full count?" It's descriptive. It's short. Everyone knows what it means. Why did it become a problem to say it? But for the fact that someone told you not to say "full count" when you were learning to umpire, would you ever have thought it would be inappropriate?
|
It isn't a problem as long as everyone understand what it means. Remember, not all games with all associations use 4-3. Retaining the 4-3 was one of the reasons the slow pitch rules don't change the required balls or strikes, but just add one to each side when the batter enters the box.
In some SP games, the count can actually be 3-3 where a courtesy foul is allowed. So which is full, 3-2 or 3-3? Is this rare? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean teams can get confused when they play in a different area and umpires are using different verbiage or the same verbiage to mean different things.
Quote:
Along the same lines, why are clinicians so anal about using, "Two balls, two strikes" rather than allowing umpires to say "Two and two?" Who doesn't know what "two and two" means? I've heard a clinician "correct" an umpire asking, "What is 'two and two?'" "It's four!"  NOT!
|
It is anal, but what happens when you have an umpire who doesn't give a ball-strike count but a strike-ball count. Or gives the count properly, but uses the opposite hands to indicate the count?
I have seen this and not from rookie umpires. It should never be different, but apparently it is somewhere, sometime.
Quote:
|
When you can't give even a little leeway in how you give the count, it isn't hard to figure out why people think that most umpires on TV look like robots.
|
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that.