I think waiting a half-second or so longer before calling the pitch was one of the greatest adjustments I made as an umpire. It was somewhere in my second year. I think it has little to do with whether or not you like "framing" and everything to do with making the right call. I also think it is key to verbalize ball calls as well as strikes. Jim/NYC

JIm,
Took me 10 years to find out I should be slowing down.
One night I was told; that night I changed.
Love it.
I don't verbalize "balls" 100% of the time, but since I changed to the delay, I have yet to have my mouth call one thing while my mind was calling the other. :)
mick

thanks for the help
 

Thanks to everyone for the great advice. I am really trying to develop the habit of taking a beat before making the call, as many of you are advocating. I know as a player and coach, the most exasperating thing ever was when you knew the plate umpire had given up on the breaking ball and called a ball as it dropped into the zone, or was already ringing up a strike on what turned out to be a changeup as the ball dropped into the dirt.

I am determined to get this right (even if I mess up everything else).

Yes, I'm all for delaying the call a bit and try to do so myself. It's waiting to make the decision that doesn't work for me.

i know how to properly frame pitches, i played last year in college. as an umpire, the only time it sometimes convinces me is on low pitches but most of the time they dont frame that pitch right. i hate seeing younger kids frame pitches incorrectly and then the coach asks me if i saw the frame and they ask where it was. yeah i saw the frame, but the kid caught the ball and brought it back to the middle of the plate and didnt think i saw that, and the ball was 18 inches outside.

brian43,
I think that's pulling the pitch, not framing the pitch.
mick

Framing the pitch
 

Catching skills

http://members.tripod.com/bb_catcher...ills_frame.htm

i know thats what it is, some coaches think thats framing the pitch. framing only involves a small movement in the wrist, not moving your entire arm 2 feet back towards the plate.

Quote:

i know thats what it is, some coaches think thats framing the pitch. framing only involves a small movement in the wrist, not moving your entire arm 2 feet back towards the plate.

Okay.
I was confused, as usual.

Re: Framing the pitch
 

I think that I disagree with most of this article, but I do believe it is how most players and coaches think. Quotes like, "he will not be anxious to help you on a borderline pitch" make improper assumptions.

A ball is a ball and a stike is a strike.

Framing to me means holding the pitch there for half a second or so. Framing a stike on the corner lets everyone know that the catcher saw the ball hit the corner, too. Jerking a ball in just makes a catcher look stupid. Framing and holding a ball outside the strike zone, especially holding it there an excessively long time, could be tantamount to arguing balls and strikes or trying to show the umpire up.

I believe that framing properly or not, only affects the response of less intelligent and over emotional coaches to the umpires call. It does make like easier or harder for the umpire in that most don't want to deal with coaches complaining about pitches. But I personally don't think it affects the calls.

Re: Re: Framing the pitch
 

And on the bases, "if he's out he's out and if he's safe he's safe."

OK, case closed, question asked and answered, we can all go home now, fully trained in how to umpire. :)

Or, we can recognize that sometimes the calls aren't quite as easy as "a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike," and we can look to more advanced concepts in our approach to umpiring that will allow us to develop, hopefully, a level of consistency that gets us recognized as one of the better, rather than poorer, umpires around.

A concept that I have found very useful in reaching that objective is a set of logical guidelines for resolving the benefit of the doubt on close calls. When you make a call that is consistent with "the expected call" (i.e., the call everyone else expects you to make based on what happened), consistent with the principle of advantage/no advantage, that rewards the team that did their job and punishes the team that didn't, then you will find you'll encounter fewer arguments on the close ones, and you'll be in a superior position to defend your call in those arguments that do happen.

Bringing the "benefit of the doubt" concept to calling balls and strikes is easy and logical. Despite the simplictic lure of the "ball is a ball and strike is a strike" tautology, the truth is a borderline pitch may <b>legitimately</b> be called a ball or a strike, depending to a large degree on how the catcher handles (or butchers) it. Think about it - that fastball at the knees on the outside corner that the catcher sticks beautifully, out there in front of him, with no pulling, "framing" or presenting it perfectly for all to see, virtually calls itself. It's a strike.

That very same pitch, "butchered" by a less-skilled catcher - say he reacts late and ends up snagging it as it sails past his body, and then wildly pulls it back towards the zone - is <b>NOT</b> a strike, for several good reasons. It doesn't LOOK like a strike to the participants and spectators, and it doesn't deserve to be a strike because the catcher effed it up.

In addition to the corners, how the catcher handles the low pitch is crucially important to helping you establish a consistent, and respected strikezone at the knees. If he's set up properly, not too far back, and he knows to reach forward and catch that low pitch with his fingertips up, and then present that location for a beat so everyone including the umpire can see that it wasn't too low, then you can give him that call with little (if any) grief. If, on the other hand, the catcher is too far back, and/or turns his glove around and "scoops" that very same pitch off the dirt, then you'll likely be crucified (justifiably) if you call that pitch a strike.

Developing and applying these "benefit of the doubt" guidelines will make your game smoother, with fewer (or at least shorter) arguments and chirping on the close calls. The better coaches and players will understand and appreciate what you are doing and why, and the clueless coaches and players will piss and moan just like they always do, and they'll continue to lose. As it should be.

Re: Framing the pitch
 

Oh, I don't deny that there's more to the "ball's a ball, strike's a strike" philosophy than where the ball is. I'm still one that gives a half a ball or so on the outside corner... but not if the catcher is set up two inches inside and has to dive out there to catch the pitch. I will probably not call a strike on a slow curve that just nicks the front knee area of the strike zone but bounces into the catchers glove.

However, I hope I don't now or in the future use "framing" as part of my decision in ruling a strike or a ball.

Re: Re: Framing the pitch
 

FWIW, I think Dave Hensley has it 100% right in his response.

I think you may have (marginally) missed the point. It isn't that you should consciously use whether or not the catcher framed the pitch in your decision-making - rather it is that the catcher framing the pitch makes is possible for you to use all the right cues to decide the true path of the marginal pitch in relation to the strike zone.

A well-framed pitch let's the umpire, and others, see the whole path of the pitch. A dragged or "pulled" pitch doesn't.

A well-framed pitch gives the umpire the opportunity to allow the benefit of any doubt to the pitcher. A dragged marginal pitch just looks bad to everybody and calling it a strike, no matter how marginal, tars the umpire with that same brush. It tells everyone that the catcher thought the pitch was outside.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Mr. Hensley,

Bravo David, for the best response in this thread. With only 16 posts to your name, you have put to shame all of the sensless jabber by some of our "senior" members.

You certainly confirmed how I call balls and strikes, or at least how I hope I do.

Hensley might only have 16 posts here, but he's been around Internet umpiring boards longer than I have. He is a "senior" member despite his low post count on this particular board.