I have two sons who are catchers. They have been taught from an early age by experienced coaches how to frame pitches (I'm talking about smooth funneling and mitt positioning, NOT jerking every pitch back over the plate). I have heard many umpires say that framing is overrated, and that they are not influenced by it.

I am now in the early stages of learning to be an umpire, and have been reading quite a bit on mechanics and technique. In many places I have read about the importance of watching the pitch all the way into the mitt, and "seeing the pitch again" in the mind's eye before making a call. I was surprised to find this approach advocated, as it seems to suggest that the catcher's framing is indeed likely to be an important part of the umpire's decision-making process.

I would be very interested to hear some experienced umpires' comments on this. I am looking here for advice both as an aspiring umpire AND as a catcher's dad.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Jim

I am not sure that I would say I was "influenced" by framing but I'd darn near say the team with the catcher who knows how to do it well will end up with more strikes being called if their pitchers are decent. I know if the pitch is on the corner and the catcher pulls the glove in it is harder for me to call that a strike. If the catcher sits on the corner and the ball hits his glove it is easier to call that pitch a strike. Jim / NYC

Don't know about y'all, but that sounds like the definition of "influence" to me...

I don't see why you find this surprising. Do you think it would be better to call the pitch BEFORE it reaches the catcher's mitt?

sort of
 

The part I found surprising was focusing on watching it all the way into the mitt, since it is (typically) behind the zone.

Obviously the call itself should not be made before it reaches the mitt (although I'm afraid I've seen it done).

You are right, it is done WAY too often, and by long time umpires. To properly call a pitch your eyes have to track to ball all the way into the mitt before your mind can decide what the pitch was. Then you verbalize it, after deciding. This is done by keeping your head perfectly still (in the slot) and above the level of the catcher's head. Your shoulders are square and ONLY your eyes move. When properly positioned, you can see the entire plate and several inches outside.

Good luck with your learning. Amateurumpire.com has a whole sequence of instructional articles explaining mechanics at the plate and on the bases. It is good reading for the winter. Your desire to learn correctly will take you far. Also, attend a clinic if you can, especially one that has cage work for the plate umpire.

Influence is described as "A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort." I think the way the question was posed one might conclude the umpire would be "fooled" by the framing of the catcher without effort. I think calling balls and strikes is part art (Questec induced automatic officiating) as well as science. The PU can use the catcher's ability to "sell" calls most of which would be strikes without any catcher's efforts. Obviously there are going to be clear "balls" that the catcher tries to "frame". In those cases he best not be painting the picture too long i.e. get the ball back to the pitcher. Jim/NYC

Before starting to umpire, I also read a lot about watching the ball into the glove and not being in a hurry to make the call. That was probably the best advice I could have gotten. An 80 MPH slider on the corner is difficult to call when you are a rookie umpire (Yes, iI was given games at that level), but with good mechanics and timing it will be easier to get it right.

As far as framing is concerned. A good catcher will benefit by framing the pitches and a poor catcher will hurt his pitcher. A borderline pitch at the knees will probably be a ball if the catcher turns his mitt over. He makes the pitch appear to be lower than it is. A well framed pitch wil probably get the call.

The other night I called a HS that was not great calibre. I was giving both pitchers a few inches on the outside. One team changed their catcher midway through the game. First pitch was 2-3 inches off the plate on the outside. The catcher jerks the glove back towards the plate. I discreetly said to him that I had been giving both pitchers that pitch all night. I said if you do that and I call it strike, your making me look bad. He got the message.

Jay

Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

On a close pitch, I would much rather have a catcher "frame" without moving the glove. That frozen mitt helps me take my snapshot.

Most times a catcher pulls a pitch, the only strike call given is from the bleachers of a youth game. I don't generally see that with adults.

mick

Jim, I think we first need to be sure we are talking about the same thing when we are discussing "<i>framing</i>". I'm not certain that I understand what you mean by "<i>smooth funneling and mitt positioning</i>", although I know exactly what you don't mean when you exclude "<i>jerking every pitch back over the plate</i>".

In my experience "framing" is the act of the catcher slightly straightening his wrist and closing the otherwise motionless mitt over the ball. It has the effect of making the mitt appear smaller from behind, giving the umpire a better impression of the final position of the ball in the mitt. That, in turn, helps to complete the picture of the ball's true line of flight from its release point in the hand of the pitcher. It involves a simple closing of the fingers toward the palm of the hand inside the mitt. True "framing" takes a strong forearm, great self-confidence and firm muscle control on the part of the catcher.

I have always been influenced to call a strike on an otherwise marginal pitch that is well "framed" by the catcher. I have never been influenced to give the benefit of the doubt on any marginal pitch that required movement of the pitcher's forearm or glove in the general direction of the plate.

That is the criterion I have called by throughout my own career, and the criterion taught to and applied by my colleagues and peers who are now representing my country in International AAA and AA baseball.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Aussie talk
 

Warren,
I'm sure that is very clear to you in your upside-down world. :)
mick

Re: Aussie talk
 

"<i>Natcherly! Soitenly! Gnuck, gnuck, gnuck!</i>" :D

It undoubtedly works for others, but "seeing the pitch again in the mind's eye" does not work for me. I'm quite sure I am more accurate going with my first instinct.

Whenever I have tried delaying my decision, I have gotten into trouble. I suspect that the minds of some people (like me) re-create inaccurately on that "second" look.

I find it interesting to watch films from the 1950s and see how fast the MLB umps used to make all their calls, plate and bases. The right arm seemed to be going up while the ball was crossing the plate.

My fast decisions undoubtedly have their drawbacks, but I do believe they prevent catcher "framing" from having much influence.

I think framing can be a good thing
 

I would agree that especially in HS ball and below if a catcher is able to frame the pitch very carefully it not only makes the umpires job easier but it also makes it a lot easier on the coaches.

As one poster stated above, one catcher might catch the outside corner pitch but move his mitt downward, (he won't get the call).

the other F2 would catch the pitch as Warren stated by only rotating the wrist to cover the pitch. (he will get the call)

Most umpires are looking for a pitcher who can hit the mitt. A good catcher who can frame those pitches will get probably 5-10 calls a game that any other catcher would not get.

An example is the kid who sets up 6 inches off the plate and F1 hits the mitt and the dumb F2 tries to frame the pitch to make it look marginal. Everyone in the stands thinks its a strike and so does the coach even though he called the pitch that far outside.

That is not proper framing. A good F2 will only frame the pitch when its needed, but if the pitch is over the plate he will help the umpire.

This is just as important I might add on the inside corner even though many kids don't work as hard on framing that pitch for some reason.

Until Questec has started to ruin MLB you would also see this in MLB. Now they are afraid to call these pitches for fear of repercussions.

Thanks
David

greymule,
It's all about being comfortable, isn't it?
If you like it that way, you do it that way.

However, I find it hard to believe that a catcher framing a pitch, or tap dancing, is gonna affect your game.
mick

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.

Thank you Jim for sharing that with us. I believe that I can actully learn something from David Hensley's posts. My guess is that there are others out there who read some of the nonsense that goes on in these boards (not just this one) and simply drift away without edification.

On this board, we actually pay to communicate with one another about baseball and particularly the art of umpiring.

Marty, thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you found my comments useful.

Pre game talk to catchers
 

I do many game where neither team knows me. I will go to each catcher and tell him to frame if he likes but if he tucks the ball in the strike zone he will always get a ball call. If he frames the pitch I will better be able to call the outside pitches in his favor. I reason this and "break the ice" with the catchers by telling them that I have never had a catcher to tuck a strike. If he wants to call "balls" he may tuck them to indicate the ball. I will call strikes.

The coaches like the attitude and appreciate the effort to ease and direct the catcher.

My favorite is to have a weak catcher to setup inside and have a pitch just in the strike zone on the outside where the catcher reaches "outside" to get the ball and has the ball swing the mitt behind him.

Just read all this stuff , have not visited in a couple of days. Good topic, and good posts here. In softball clinics, I have been taught to track the ball by moving my head, in baseball clinic, with eyes only, but all the way to the mitt on both. If I move my head, my vision "rattles" so I track with my eyes. I view the catchers actions this way, and mind you it has to be done in a split second. If I see a "borderline pitch" and catcher frames glove, I tend to call strike, catcher doesnt really influence me, I am using the complete pitch cycle to determine the track of the ball. If glove is pulled, snatched, or repositioned, the catcher has just told me he didnt see a strike either!

Another important reason to track ball into catchers mitt is, as an umpire youve always gotta know where the ball is. If you get a passed ball, borderline pitch, its hard to call that a strike, especially in upper level play. I love the plate position as an umpire, I suppose because I was a catcher, that is the only position I ever played.

Marty wrote:

<b>"On this board, we actually pay to communicate with one another about baseball and particularly the art of umpiring."</b>

Actually, Marty, this board (Official Forum) is free to all whether one has paid to subscribe to Officiating.com or not.

Re: Re: Framing the pitch
 

[/B][/QUOTE]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. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is the point. You will make a different call on a pitch in the same place, depending how the catcher catches the ball. If he is set up a little outside and the pitch hits him square in the mit - strike. If the catcher is set up inside and he has to reach for a pitch a little outside - ball. In the first case, it looked like it could be a strike to everybody at the field. In the second case, it didn't look like a strike to anybody.

If you make the expected call, you get less grief. If the players execute (pitcher hits his spot - catcher is set up in the right place), they get the reward of a pitch on the edge of the zone.

Selling the outside pitch
 

I see some agree that if the catcher reaches far for the outside pitch then it is a ball. It saves so much grief not calling the reach out pitch. I even tell the catcher that I will give the outside pitch if he can help me sell it. In exibition or practice games I will go to the coach and tell him that the catcher is setting up inside and losing the call because of the reach. The coaches really appreciate the information.