Catcher "framing" a pitch

[CoachPaul]

The "frame" is the strike zone and not the catcher's body. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous as "the catcher is the frame." Framing is presenting the ball to the umpire in order to give him the best look at the ball and the best chance of getting every strike for your pitcher; not that it was caught between your shoulders. A ball thrown outside the zone where the catcher doesn't have to move his glove is not something to be rewarded with a strike call. It needs to be a strike to be called a strike, people! The pitcher was trying to get the batter to chase. The fact that the batter was disciplined enough to resist the bait should not end in an umpire ringing him up!

The biggest old school v new school issue that I see is how catchers frame the low strike. It used to be just as good to turn the glove fingers down and stick the catch, now there's some BS theory that just by turning the glove you are admitting it is too low. The ball's position establishes strike or ball, McFly. I can catch strikes with my fingers down all day and the umpires should not shun strikes. So many times I've seen a strike bounce off the catcher's thumb pad by him trying to meet the new school standard of catching the ball with the thumb down. The ball skitters away and runners advance. Trying to catch the ball more securely should not be penalized by calling a strike a ball just because the catcher secured the ball in the most efficient manner.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

The "frame" is the strike zone and not the catcher's body. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous as "the catcher is the frame." Framing is presenting the ball to the umpire in order to give him the best look at the ball and the best chance of getting every strike for your pitcher; not that it was caught between your shoulders. A ball thrown outside the zone where the catcher doesn't have to move his glove is not something to be rewarded with a strike call. It needs to be a strike to be called a strike, people! The pitcher was trying to get the batter to chase. The fact that the batter was disciplined enough to resist the bait should not end in an umpire ringing him up!

The biggest old school v new school issue that I see is how catchers frame the low strike. It used to be just as good to turn the glove fingers down and stick the catch, now there's some BS theory that just by turning the glove you are admitting it is too low. The ball's position establishes strike or ball, McFly. I can catch strikes with my fingers down all day and the umpires should not shun strikes. So many times I've seen a strike bounce off the catcher's thumb pad by him trying to meet the new school standard of catching the ball with the thumb down. The ball skitters away and runners advance. Trying to catch the ball more securely should not be penalized by calling a strike a ball just because the catcher secured the ball in the most efficient manner.

You claiming it is reality does not make it so. If the catcher turns his glove and is able to catch it cleanly, it is too low. If it was a strike, it wouldn't be able to be cleanly caught that way (in general.)

That aside, the biggest hindrance to catchers getting the low strike isn't the position of the glove. It's that they sweep up with the arm as they catch it, basically pulling the glove.