i have a couple of questions for those who want to argue.

1) have you ever seen a Fork ball in the show called a strike without someone swinging? I'll tell you right now some of those are Strikes per rule. NEVER EVER Called a Strike.


2) What about the curveball in? The one at the batter, that the batter flinches or in some funny cases hits the dirt, but the catcher catches clean on the inside. I think Roy Halliday and may others might be out of a job if this is not a strike.

3) Also remember this is about the close pitches - the either way pitches. Out of curiousity, are you the same guys who on a stolen base pitch that is taken all the way will call a close pitch a ball?? Just curious.

On a side note, If I was a coach I'd take a Great Catcher and an OK pitcher before a Great Pitcher and an OK catcher. One of my favorite stories from an Ex- MiLB ump, was about Gregg Zaun. He would catch every ball (he could) bring it to his chest and throw the ball back to the pitch in one fluid movement. He didn't let anyone get an idea where the ball was up, down, in, out. Every pitch ended up hitting his chest. The umpire simply called the pitch. No *****ing about anything. I think the plate grows a bit in this instance, what do you think?

A close pitch on an attempted stolen base that is taken is ALWAYS a strike, unless it's caught really ugly by the catcher.

Why ?

Because nobody is looking at the pitch, they are all looking at the runner.

I used to think that was true - and taught it in my clinics back in the early 70s.

But you can't ever do it in an NCAA game because there's an off-duty pitcher whose only job is to chart pitches. He doesn't give a damn about the stolen base.

And, if you have a good catcher, he'll know whether your screwed him or not, even as he prepares to throw out R1.

As you move down in baseball, your dictum is still right.

You screw the catcher by calling the pitch a strike?

A close pitch, by definition, could go either way :)

I thought a close pitch, by definition, was a strike. ;)

My main problem, by the way, with including catcher's actions in your determination of the ball/strike call, is that the batter is not watching the catcher, and doesn't care what the catcher does. You give one borderline ball because the catcher blows the catch, and then later on that same batter, call it a strike because the catcher was better, and you're putting batters at a disadvantage. The batter deserves a consistent zone just as much as the pitcher does.

Yeah, there is that. The catcher will enjoy that trip to Brokeback Mountain, if you call the "ball" a "strike."

What I was trying to say is that you have someone from each side watching the pitch, so you'd better bear down and call it what it is.

Sorry about looking stupid, but I doubt it will be the last time.

Well,
 

The name of my column on this website is:

Strikes & Outs

I guess that defines my feelings on this thead.

Regards,

What does it mean? Is how the catcher receives a pitch on the edge not a factor ?

What's the point?

I think the point is that we amateur umpires are castigated for daring to occasionally glance down at our "crutch" to reaffirm that the count is actually what we think it is, and that some MLB umpires do the same exact thing, and we don't consider them "Smitties" for doing so.:rolleyes:

Reading it slowly ...
 

I would guess that its means what he said, strikes and outs ...

We called that "reading between the lines" when I was in grade school many moons ago.

There have been many articles written, one of my favorite was written by a well known author who talked about "looking for strikes - especially early in the game"

A great concept by the way ...

But that's a whole different thread and only a veteran umpire would understand it anyway.

Thansk
David

"Strikes mean outs, outs mean games, games mean money." :D

No doubt I'm going to regret getting back into this thread. It began as an effort to show that the catcher can affect how pitches are called.

It's degenerated into chit-chat about umpires who want to call what "they" want rather than what is.

Dishonest: I go out looking for strikes.
Honest: I go out looking at pitches.

Dishonest: When in doubt, it's a strike.
Honest: If you don't see the pitch as a strike, it isn't.

The message quoted above, while cute and perhaps intended as nothing more than humor, represents a dishonest approach to umpiring.

Old Smitty: "Carl, I go out and in the first inning I call five or six borderline pitches strikes. Boy, they start swinging. My games are the shortest because I make them swing. Nobody walks but the mailman."

The batter has as much right to make a living as the pitcher. If you call questionable pitches strikes, you will force batters to swing at bad pitches. Of course, that leads to outs!

Why is it we can't simply umpire?

Tee: Strikes & Outs: That represents my philosophy.
Carl: I've told Tee before that is a bad philosophy.

For those of you still learning, or willing to learn, listen, oh, my brothers: Don't report to the game with any agenda, with any expectations. Don't say: When it leaves the pitcher's hand it's a strike until proved otherwise.

When it leaves the pitcher's hand, it's nothing more than a pitch.

See the pitch, call the pitch.

Be as willing to walk three batters in a row as you are to strike out three in a row.

What the umpire thinks, how he views baseball, what he wants: None of that has any place in a game.

Since I began this, let me jump back in.....

It appears to me that many call the pitch as it comes through the strike zone. Many call it with the afore mentioned + how the catcher catches it. I am thinking that is as subjective as holding is to football officials. Their own interpretation. I also have read where calling with the catcher in mind makes for better games - less chirping from coaches and fans- , anbd some have advance to higher level games because of these calls.

In reading this thread, I did change my approach last night at the dish. I allowed the catcher to influence balls & strikes calls. It did prove some correct- less chirping from the coaches and fans as I allowed a for sure strike (above the knees at the plate) to be a ball since it did scrape the ground as the C caught it. No one said a word other than, you can miss there and catch the ball Tim (catcher's name).

In all and all, I figure that I am adopting this style of calling balls and strikes. BTW, the game was a good pace with a few more walks that I have had in the past games.

I would like to thank everyone for the opinions!