The spirit or letter of the rules?

[C'monBlue]

Had an ugly play today in a 16U tournament. Last inning in a one-run game, 1-2 count. Catcher calls a pitch-out. Everyone in the park knows it's a pitch-out except the pitcher, who throws a beautiful fastball, belt-high on the outer half of the plate. The catcher has to reach way back to catch it before attempting to throw the runner out. In spite of the ugliness, I rang the batter up. Needless to say, everyone went nuts.

I was just wondering how our local big dogs view a play like that. Do you make the catcher earn the strike too, or do you follow the letter of the law because a strike is a strike?

Just curious.

[JRutledge]

Any time you can get a strike, get a strike.

Actually I would have to see the play to make a real determination. But at that level I would more likely call a strike if it was clearly right down the middle.

Peace

[bigwes68]

If the pitch is right down the middle and there's two strikes on the batter in a one-run game, that kid better be swinging, pitch-out or not. The batter should be paying attention to the pitch, not where the catcher is set up. There's always the chance (however small) that they might be faking the pitch-out to get the batter looking at the catcher and not ready to swing.

Furthermore, if a coach is telling his batter to take a pitch with two strikes and sending a runner in a one-run game, he's an idiot and deserves to have that strike called on him.

[Dan S.]

a strike is a strike is a strike is a strike is a strike! who cares how it looks or where everyone is. get the call right even when it looks bad...either way, someones going to be mad or disagree, and the other party's gonna love ya. you might as well get the job done right and keep the integrity of the game intact.

[DG]

I doubt there will be any arguments if a 1-2 belt high border pitch is called a BALL on a pitchout when the catcher steps out for a pitchout and has to reach back to the plate to catch it. That's an ugly strike if it is called one. Right down the middle is another story, entirely.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by DG
I doubt there will be any arguments if a 1-2 belt high border pitch is called a BALL on a pitchout when the catcher steps out for a pitchout and has to reach back to the plate to catch it. That's an ugly strike if it is called one. Right down the middle is another story, entirely.

My plate doesn't have a middle - strike or ball just like those other calls (safe-out, fair-foul, etc.) Well not really but...

This is a very valid question - do you judge balls and strikes based upon the location of the ball or should we include the ability of the catcher? The ability of the pitcher to throw directly to the catcher? Their ability to communicate?

I'm not certain there is a definite answer. I tend to lean towards location of the ball and only the location of the ball. But I've been known to pass on a strike call because the catcher was unable to reach or hold-on to the ball.

A similar non pitch-out situation is when the catcher may have either set-up away from the "middle" of the plate and then either can't reach it or can't squeeze it or tries to pull it in and drops it...

With my rate of delivering a strike call (timing), there is generally a pregnant pause after the catcher fails to hold onto the ball........ to come with a strike call after that un-normal pause and after the catcher has dropped the ball always attracts attention. And that attention is not something you want as an umpire. To paraphrase what I believe was DG's sentiment, down the tube and the catcher drops it... pause... strike. Any flack can usually be simply addressed with "The ball was in the zone."

Obviously, knowing the proper response means that, in the past, I have been chastised for making that call.

However, let's consider what the defense is trying to do... they are trying to pitch a BALL... either to make a pick off attempt or to walk the batter; if I think they are trying to pitch a BALL and would be content with a BALL call... Give 'em the BALL call.

So, it just comes down to your judgement. And just like all those other judgement calls, some people like 'em and some people don't. We still gotta call 'em.

Although I introduced a different situation (dropped catch), I think I would call a STRIKE if the catcher was calling for a pitch-out to make a pick-off play (the original situation) and likely call a BALL if the catcher/pitcher battery was attempting to walk the batter.

Rereading this, I think I may have confused the issue, but hopefully there is a good answer in there somewhere.

[WindyCityBlue]

I think that the answer to this puzzle lies on a slightly different tangent.

The kid calls for the pitch out; the pitcher delivers, but the pitch is over the edge of the plate and the catcher reaches back to catch it...only to have the batter hit it safely into left field. Different result...same pitch. Why would you call it any different?

At that level, a lot of coaches argue (on balls) that the kid could have hit the close ones, right???

We don't judge strikes on the ability of the catcher. We judge them on the pitcher's ability to meet the definition of a strike according to the rules employed by that league.

Shame on the pitcher...not the umpire.

[JJ]

If it's a strike and I call it a ball - shame on me! I have never relied on the ability of a catcher to make or break balls and strikes. Catcher drops a "strike"? I'll still call it a strike (and take the heat if need be). Most of the pitchers we work for have enough trouble throwing strikes without me taking one away from them. Of course, if I do call a strike on a dropped strike, I almost immediately say to the catcher, "Catch the ball". But then, he's usually hearing it from his coach, too. The smart ones (catchers and coaches) know that DOES make our job a bit more sellable on the close ones.

[ozzy6900]

I'll be honest, several years ago, I stopped letting the catcher "assist" me in making calls. Many of the catchers that I deal with still do not know how to properly frame a strike. I still get HS catchers pulling the ball into the strike zone and catching sinkers with the glove turned the wrong way. Personally, I got fed up with screwing the pitchers throwing beautiful splitters only to have the catcher ruin the pitch. I decided at that time to let the pitch and only the pitch call the strike. Sure I get crap for it especially when F2 sets up outside and the pitcher sends one on the inside of the plate. But you know what? I get the strike and I don't have 3 hour games anymore! I found that by the 2nd inning, everyone shuts up and the pitchers get down to business. I now use the Gerry Davis stance so even more-so, I don't care what the catcher does.

[greymule]

That same play happened to me not two weeks ago. I called a strike and nobody said a word.

Maybe some posters remember when, in the 1972 World Series, the catcher for the A's, after Johnny Bench had worked a 3-2 count, stood up and put his right hand out as if they had decided to walk Bench. But the pitcher instead threw a regular pitch, the catcher quickly moved left to catch it, and the ump called Bench out. Bench and the Reds screamed, too—the pitch was obviously low.

Once when I was pitching in a Legion game, I threw a strike when the catcher had called for a pitchout. The catcher had to reach back in fast to catch it, the ump called it a strike, and the catcher naturally came out to talk to me. I pretended that I had been crossed up on the signs, but it was really that I wanted to get ahead of that batter.

Well, I was only 15.