![]() |
Strike Pitch - Do you still call it?
HAd a game last night (JV level). Had a good & big strike zone all night. Home team pitcher stays mainly mid and up all night. Visitors came in with a guy who threw low balls and breaking junk. That being said here goes:
His pitches were strikes when they crossed the plate, then dumped off the table and headed to the ground. Catcher did a good job of catching them - well most of them. Had 3 in a row, #1 right at knees, over the plate catcher drops to block ball STRIKE 1 #2 same exact pitch. STRIKE 2 coach: " come on. ball is 3inches off the ground. LEt me know next time and we will bring shovels." #3 Ball mid thigh level over inside corner (I see it since I am set there). Ball breaks and drops down, again catcher blocks ball. STRIKE 3. Coach has a few more words; quietly. Their fans not liking the calls - obviously. My question: If it is a strike when it crosses the plate, should it matter how the C stops it? If we worry about that part then what about the C who sets up way outside (off the plate) and then P rips one on the inside corner or down the pipe. C has to quickly dive at ball to stop it. Are these BALLS? I am a first year ump looking for solid advise- not looking to begina pissing match. Thanks:confused: |
If it's a strike, call it. You're going to hear things because it LOOKS like a ball because of the way the catcher is receiving it. A strike is a strike, regardless. Besides, if you don't call it you're going to have a walkfest.
|
You're asking two different questions. Should it matter if it crosses right but catcher muffs it up - NO. It SHOULDN'T. Does it matter, yes it does.
In my opinion it is a which end of the stick do you want to hold question. To expand on your example, let's say he is doing that all game. All strikes, but appear to everyone else in attendance as balls. You will inevitably have to chuck someone in this game. A feed up batter, a feed up coach who knows but someone, plus you will have the fans all over you all game long. Yes it is a strike, but no one else thinks so. So for game management call what the entire pitching tandem gives you. As you get up in level you will often hear a catcher say to his pitcher sorry man that one was my fault. He is refering to the ugly way he caught the pitch. The pitch has to throws strikes and the catcher has to catch strikes. But if the pitcher throws a strike, but the catcher "catches a ball" what do you think the fans, players,coaches and often even evaluators can see? This is mostly to do with marginal pitches, a cockshoot that the catcher muffs is still a strike. Grab the stick, choose your end wisely. |
Quote:
The catcher is, no matter what the rulebook says, a part of what makes the pitch a strike. Sets up outside and dives back across the inside corner? Probably a ball, too, unless I need a strike in that situation. |
Rich, that's awful. A strike is a strike is a strike. The last part you typed is the worst part.
|
At the varsity level and with higher-quality JV, I agree with Rich. The catcher has to do his part and everybody knows it. Anything below that, I'm looking for strikes and outs. The batters haven't yet earned the right to be connoisseurs. Swing or sit.
|
It depends on the level I am working.
At the HS level I know the catchers are not going to catch the ball perfectly all the time. I have seen freshman players that knew how to catch the ball properly and have worked with senior catchers that did not know how to stick a pitch right down the middle. So if the pitch is right down the middle I likely going to call the pitch a strike. If the pitch is on the corners or right at the edge of the zone, then that is where they need to catch it. Part of calling pitch is how the ball is caught so you can clearly know where the pitch was and how it got there. I can tell you the more you move up, more is expected of catchers to catch the ball properly. If they do not catch the ball properly at the college level and above, the coaches are not going to blame you, they will blame the catchers for not doing their job. I had a college game last week where a coach told me to "hit my catcher in the back of the head the next time he pops up." I talk about college because you will get some HS coaches that have college experiences as players and coaches that might make an issue out of a HS catcher not catching the ball perfectly. I just worked a game today with an assistant I knew from working as a coach at a local college and he is very knowledgeable. He says things that the average HS coach never says. Peace |
I fall into Rich's line of thinking on this issue. A curve ball that is caught below mid-calf is not a strike, especially if the ball or glove touches the ground. The catcher that sets up inside or outside who must reach is glove across the plate to catch the pitch is more of a nuance. If the catcher is able to reach but still catch it within his frame and freeze his glove so the coaches can see it, it's a strike.
I call alot of strikes in my games and I work up to Division Two. I find that calling strikes tends to make the game go smoother with a minimum of griping. But the umpire's credibility is an important element in the making of a gripe-free environment. We're REQUIRED to call the high strike, so our credibility exists in the coaches' confidence that we'll call it both ways and consistently. But if either catcher makes the pitch look ugly, like letting that outside strike deflect off his mitt and travel behind him, it's a ball every time for both sides. |
Probably the single most important change in my game that got me bumped up from Frosh / JV level to Varsity was learning to take how a pitch is caught into consideration.
Years ago, I called pitches strictly on the flight / path of the pitch. If it touched the zone, no matter how or where it was caught by the catcher, I called it a strike. I used to take a lot of heat from everyone, and was considered to have a poor strike zone. Then, one of our senior members pulled me aside, and explained to me that even though a pitch might have touched the zone, if the catcher catches it in a way that makes it look like a ball to the rest of the world, I needed to call it a ball. Once I started doing that (took quite a bit of practice), my games went much smoother, my zone felt better, and I started getting compliments from all sides on my pitch calling. And the next year, my entire HS schedule consisted of Varsity games. That said, let me add; If a strike is what I call a FAT strike, meaning it basically went through the middle of the zone, but say pops out of the catchers glove...Go ahead and call those strikes. What we are talking about are the FRINGE strikes, strikes the catcher has to make extra effort to catch, or a pitch that could go either way. That's when you use how the pitch was caught to make your determination. One last piece of advice; I would only apply this to 13 YRO and up, on a 90' diamond. Start out conservatively (calling lots of strikes), reducing the number of bad catches you call strikes over time. |
Quote:
+1 (+ ten characters) |
So, what I am reading in reguards with this: even if it is a strike that the bottom drops out of and when C catches it, it is very low or blocked, call it a BALL?
I work mostly fr/jv games. It would make this seem as if the game will go on forever - walks. If I undersdtand these post correctly, we are letting what the spectators and coaches influnence what we call because of what they THINK happened, not really happened. Let me apply this to FB (for those who do that sport): do we allow the RB who did not "pop the bubble of the goal line" get the TD, because it looked like he got in??? |
smbbcoach: Baseball is a game of perception. When the fielder takes the throw at 2B and swipes his foot near the bag, but doesn't touch it, before throwing to 1B for the double play, do you call R1 safe? No you don't, because you would be the only person in the park who thinks he's safe. The whole world thinks he's out, so he's out.
Likewise, every person in the park who sees a curveball touch the dirt before the catches gloves it thinks it's a ball. So it's a ball. And since the human eye can't discern whether a curveball truly passed through the strike zone before its "bottom fell out," who are we mortal umpires to say it did? As Carl Childress says, "Never make an extraordinary call on an ordinary play." Your lower-level game won't go on forever if you pick up the high strikes. And in lower-level games give the pitchers three balls outside instead of one and a half. This is game management without sacrificing your credibility. |
insatty is exactly right. You will see this as you gain more experience behind the plate.
At your current level you can/should give more leeway and call more pitches that drop off strikes, but as the kids get older you should do this less and less. If you need to open up the zone a little do it laterally, dont mess with the floor of your zone. |
The way the catcher handles a pitch has a lot to do with helping an umpire define his strike zone. The concept is not new and is referred to as "rewarding the mitt." I'm a firm believer just as Nick and Rich are that doing this will help you advance and make your games move along a lot smoother. If a pitch breaks off of the table and catches the zone, but is handled with the mitt turned down near the dirt, it's a ball. Calling pitches strikes just above the dirt will lead to trouble. Likewise if a breaking ball comes across the zone a little high, but the pitcher sticks the mitt, it's a strike. It would be nice if we could all call balls and strikes in a vaccum, but we all know that's not going to happen. Using the catcher to help you call pitches is a great tool.
Tim. |
At the HS Varsity level I use the concept of the "strike zone of least resistance". Is this contrary to the rule? I don't think so.
For example, you have a big sweeping 12/6 curve ball that probably crosses somewhere through the strike zone, but bounces before the catcher can touch it, and ends up at the backstop. What do you think will happen if you call that one a strike? An outside pitch is about a ball lengths outside, and the catcher jerks it back into the zone. Same pitch, but the F2 frames it, keeps his glove still. Technically, both are balls. What do you do? If it looks like a strike, call it a strike. Use the catcher and batter as "landmarks". Generally, if the catchers glove is pointing upward, the ball is probably not too low. If the catcher doesn't have to reach above his head to catch the ball, its probably not too high. Generally, if the ball is caught within the area defined by the catcher's knees, its not too far outside or inside. The key is consistency, call the same pitch the same way every time during the game. The pitcher's and their coach wants to be able to be comfortable that they can get the same call in the same spot every time. The best thing you can hear is a coach tell a griping player, " He's been calling that a strike all day long, now shut up and hit the damn ball". Bob P. |
The catcher can help his pitcher by "sticking" the catch on borderline pitches. If he "jerks" a borderline pitch I figure he thinks it's a ball and he is trying to fool me, but everyone can see what he did, so I call it a ball. If he sets up outside and has to reach inside to catch one, or is set up inside and has to dive to the outside to catch one it's a ball. Strikes are easy to catch and should look easy.
At the higher levels you will get a lot of grief calling pitches strikes that the catcher did not easily catch. And if you call a borderline pitch a ball that popped out of the catcher's mitt, you will hear "you gotta catch that pitch" out of the dugout from the manager to his catcher. |
I understand your perspectives, but I am really troubled by the idea of calling a STRIKE a ball to "speed the game up" (as I was bothered in a previous post to hear an umpire say to call a pitch a foot outside the plate a strike to "make the batter swing")
It is not our game to "speed up". It belongs to the players. If it takes three hours for a seven inning game then it takes three hours. Our job as officials, whether baseball, hockey, or whatever other sports, is to make calls ACCURATELY and FAIRLY. Not to watch a pitch cross the plate as a strike but call it incorrectly "unless I need a strike" (UMPIRES never need strikes, PLAYERS do) Just my two cents worth. |
Quote:
What I meant in the last part is this -- if the game is 24-1 and the losing pitcher throws this pitch, I may call it a strike regardless. |
Quote:
The game belongs to the players? Yeah, and a tie goes to the runner!:confused: |
...for the physics perfessers out there.
How much can a pitched ball break from the front of the plate to the catchers mitt, say, 2 feet away? Understood fact: the ball will be travelling at its slowest velocity so it would be breaking at its greatest magnitude. Is it possible for a pitch, thrown overhand at a speed of, say, 60 mph, that needs to be blocked by a mitt touching the dirt, to be a strike given an 18" high batter's knee? I'm not saying don't get the knee pitch nor am I saying call it where he catches it. Simply accept that we have a bad look at the low line of the zone and the coaches view is better. If the ball can't get to the catcher's knee then it was never a strike. D |
Quote:
|
The zone goes to the hollow beneath the knee, at least in OBR and NCAA, and I call it that way, if the catcher "sticks" the catch. If he is dropping to his knees it's a ball because a pitch at the hollow is easily catchable.
|
Quote:
Have you ever umpired a pitcher with a very sharp 12 to 6 curveball, such as the one Barry Zito throws when he is on? I sure have, Barry Zito. He had a wicked nasty breaking ball as a HS pitcher. The ball could break down through the bottom of the strike zone, above the knee, and land in the dirt in front of the catcher. The pitches were absolutely solid strikes, yet by where they were caught looked like they were low. With most pitchers, they would have been low and called balls, but you just couldn't do that with Zito. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You should be troubled, since your reading skills seem a bit degraded....no where in this thread does it say to call a pitch a foot outside the zone a strike to 'make anyone swing', and how does a ball in place of a strike 'speed the game up?' Would that not do the opposite? :rolleyes: A time-honored technique to exaggerate/embellish previous posts so as to oppose a viewpoint that doesn't really exist.... |
L-Man -
Post #4 "unless I need a stike in that situation" Post #6 "the batters haven't yet earned the right to be connoisseurs. Swing or sit." Post #14 "let your gamess move along a lot smoother" And my personal favorite, Post #13 where the strike zone moves depending on "your current level". I missed that page in my Fed book - in that one the strike zone is the same from 6th grade to Varsity I accept your apology. As to "foot outside" that was from a post a couple weeks ago. My point was, YES we need to get younger players to swing the bat and pitchers to hit the plate. But if a batter has to "earn" the right to not swing at balls, we better be able to call that trapdoor curve a strike and spectators be damned. After all, my best friend on the field the CATCHER knew it was a strike to - and I've never seen a spectator or a rat come out and throw themselves in front of high close one to keep me from getting hit! Thanks for listening and for the responses - this is a terrific group of professionals! |
Please tell me you don't really think the strike zone is, or should be the same for 6th graders through varsity ball. Like it or not we hold the younger batters to a higher standard in regards to the strike zone, and the pitchers to a higher standard in upper levels of baseball. I would suggest that you discuss this with your association's senior members if you don't believe this and see what they say.
Tim. |
I would never advocate calling a strike on a pitch a foot outside. If you give 'em more than 8 or 9 inches, coaches start to get suspicious. :D
|
BigUmp - yes, there's a bigger strike zone for a 6th grader - but once you determine it stick with it. Don't enlarge it when you need a strike.
Experience brings the place where you can make the call that keeps the batter and pitcher happy. The sense I was getting from the posts was that the zone can move depending on the situation in older levels. Changing Air Trainers to cleats and blue to jerseys with numbers on them, it's players jumping on US for calling outs at first in the seventh that were safe in the second inning. But like I said, I truly appreciate this back and forth. It helps me. |
Quote:
Hmmm....a post a 'couple weeks ago' ...not in THIS thread: check. "Make games move smoother" hmmm....has no bearing on calling a strike a ball: check. If you call a zone as tight on 6th graders as you do in varsity as you say, you must be a hated man amongst the middle schools in your area....in fact, I'll chalk this intemperate statement to more exaggeration. Nothing/no one you listed said anything about a foot outside or a ball instead of a strike speeds the game (as you said)...even after all this time to 'research' your answer. My apology will stay in my pocket, thanks :D |
Nobody Said That !
Quote:
When I was instructed to take up the pitch calling techniques being talked about, I spent many nights tossing and turning about it. But I had a lot of respect for the umpire that pulled me aside, so decided to try it. Lowe and behold, it actually felt better. Yes, we are there to uphold the rules of the game, to call what we see, and to be impartial. Be we are also expected to do what is expected of us. I would rather argue a call to the 2% who expect a strike called on pitch that 'actually' was a strike, than to the 98% who saw a ball. How many times have you seen a runner called out on a tag play because the ball got there way before the runner, even though the runner may have the base just before they are tagged (usually a high tag) ? Same thing. The 'expected' call, is the call to make. |
Quote:
Rich Garcia's comment describing the strike zone is one of umpiring's classic statements: "A strike is where I call it and they don't b!tch!" Paste that on the back of your catcher's helmet, follow it religiously, and watch your evaluations climb. There is this romantic, some might say sophomoric, view that umpiring is an exact science, that a "strike is a strike is a strike," as if there is some magical box that determines the outcome of the pitch. Not to put too fine a point on it, that's hogwash! I am amazed when I hear a so-called "umpire" say something like: "Hey, if it's a strike, I don't care whether the catcher sticks it or where he catches it." Fellows, it ain't a strike <i>until</i> the catcher sticks it. In south Texas, we play pretty good baseball. Hey, we ain't bad in soccer either: Brownsville Porter just won the state championship, 2-1, in double overtime. Down here, if I called a strike a strike <i>just because the pitch hit the published strike zone</i>, at any level above 10u, I would work games only when no one else was available. From Bronco through MSBL, including Division 1, the pitch must <i>look as if it was a strike</i>. My candidate umpires always come back and rave about a principle I teach: "If the catcher's mitt touches the ground, the pitch ain't a strike." Earlier this year, I called a 5A game between a sometime powerhouse and a periennial power. The coach of the once-in-a-while winner stopped by in the third inning to complain: "Hey, how come we're not getting that pitch at the knees?" Said I: "Because Tony's catcher is a lot better than yours." Said he: "Ain't that the truth." He gave me a pat on the butt and went on his way. Oh, he was the coach at Brownsville Porter. He won't win the state championship this year. Most of us are working amateur ball. We know the limits of our pitchers and catchers. If we have had any meaningful experience at all, we <i>know</i> what we can call without being killed by both sides. I can tell you this: The coach whose pitcher is getting strikes in the dirt simply because they <i>were</i> strikes at some point during the pitch is nervous as hell and praying that you won't be consistent with that "zone" when his team comes to bat. In other words, he hopes you're an all-around bad ump. I was pleased with this thread: Most of the posters recognized that there is no magical zone, that it takes two (a pitcher and a catcher) to create a strike. Ten years ago, Rich and I might have been alone. We've come a long way, Baby. |
I'd like to be a fly on the screen when the coach comes out to politely ask where that pitch was and you tell him "your batter hasn't earned the right to be a connoisseur"
|
Quote:
No need to get clever, right? In over 50 years, I don't recollect a coach ever asking me why a pitch was a strike. He might say: "Those low pitches aren't strikes!" Or: "C'mon, Carl: My batter couldn't hit those pitches with a 50-inch bat." Offensive coaches ask only about a pitch they thought was a strike but I called a ball. "Where was that pitch [at]?" A well-trained catcher (training courtesy of me) motions "outside," even if he thought it was a stike and I missed it. There's always another pitch right around the corner. On the other hand, a professional coach who questions the calls his <i>pitcher</i> is [not] getting understands at once when I tell him his catcher is costing the pitcher strikes. That's a given, anywhere real baseball is played. I guess it's a matter of style. I prefer telling the truth to coaches who are courteous enough to ask. What's your position on that? |
Quote:
I've only worked 9 games so far this season. Because of a foul ball to a plate shoe that bent the plate (new ones arrived late Friday afternoon), I spent the last week working the bases in single games, so I got to watch a lot of strike zones. 7 college games, 2 HS games so far. The observations are mine alone, but certainly apply to when I work the plate, too. I have worked 2 college plates this year and so far, so good. (1) Most college pitchers can throw darts at the hollow of the knee. You'd better be prepared to call that a strike when the catcher sticks it. It's the bread and butter pitch and missing that was the biggest cause of *****ing I saw this past week. Timing, timing, timing. (2) Catchers know when they cost their pitchers strikes. I had a catcher flub a borderline curve ball and I called it a ball. The coach yelled -- at the catcher. The pitcher glared -- at the catcher. The catcher apologized to both. (3) Pitchers, to a degree, need to hit their spots. I had a catcher set up 3 inches outside on an 0-2 count and the pitch made the catcher dive back over the inside corner to catch the ball. I'm lucky I didn't get drilled. If I call that a strike, I may as well sign up for nothing but freshman and JV HS games (Carl's area is more competitive for umpires as no matter how bad I am, I'd never be relegated to 10u, although the MILF ratio is higher in those games). (4) Use the strike zone. I've started calling the top of the strike zone as written and nobody has said a word. If they do in a college game, I'll say, "That's what the NCAA wants." In a HS game, I don't have to worry as they're just happy for consistency. My new Spot-Bilt High Tops are here and I'm ready for my DH tonight. Time to quit stealing (although since my partners last week were all regular partners, I will make it up to them at some point this year). |
Majority Rules?
So is it the majority opinion here that IF:
1. A curve ball (or other pitch) crosses the plate around chest high but ends up being caught by F2 at strike level (it looks like a strike where caught) it should be called a strike? Agree [] Disagree [] 2. A curve ball (or other pitch) crosses the plate around knee high but is caught below F2's knees or even in the dirt should be called a ball? Agree [] Disagree [] 3. A pitch crosses the outside corner of the plate but F2 has to reach across his body to make the catch, giving the appearance that the pitch missed, you call it a ball? Agree [] Disagree [] 4. F2 (left-handed, RH batter) sets up slightly inside. The pitch comes inside (looks like a strike to the coaches from their side view) but because F2 didn't have to move his mitt you call it a strike? Same with the outside pitch? Agree [] Disagree [] |
This is level-dependent, but generally
1. agree, if you mean that F1 'stuck' F2's glove right where he held it. 2. agree 3. agree, depending on how much 'lurch' F2 had to do and how much corner it caught 4. how far inside/outside? 'slightly?' |
[QUOTE=Justme]So is it the majority opinion here that IF:
1. A curve ball (or other pitch) crosses the plate around chest high but ends up being caught by F2 at strike level (it looks like a strike where caught) it should be called a strike? What does chest high mean? If the pitch is a curve ball and it's caught at strike level, which I presume is somewhere around the knees, then possibly the curve never hit the zone in the first place. This is one of those "had to be there" situations and is very hard to answer. A curve that starts very high and ends up caught in the zone is not a strike. 2. A curve ball (or other pitch) crosses the plate around knee high but is caught below F2's knees or even in the dirt should be called a ball? I would not call this a strike, you would start a chirp fest. Your credibility and game management would sink faster than submarine with a screen door. 3. A pitch crosses the outside corner of the plate but F2 has to reach across his body to make the catch, giving the appearance that the pitch missed, you call it a ball? Where did the F2 initially set up? 4. F2 (left-handed, RH batter) sets up slightly inside. The pitch comes inside (looks like a strike to the coaches from their side view) but because F2 didn't have to move his mitt you call it a strike? Same with the outside pitch? The inside corner is easy to call, if you are lined up with your nose on the inside corner and you aren't flinching or bailing out. If the ball would have hit you in the nose, then its a strike. Outside is a different story, you don't really have a physical reference. So, if the pitch looks like a strike, and the catcher catches it like a strike, I have a strike. Bob P. |
1. Agree; If the catcher catches it in the bottom half of the zone (or at least below his chin). Otherwise, a chest high (out of the zone) curve is not going to look like a strike.
2. Agree 3. Agree 4. Agree; 1/2 ball inside, 1 ball outside |
[QUOTE=RPatrino]
Quote:
[QUOTE=RPatrino] Quote:
|
EAsy to tell
Quote:
Now for kids (LL etc., ) call a strike whenever you can get one and be glad for it, but for our first year umpire asking the question, I'm assuming he's talking about HS or up baseball. If the catcher is dropping to block a pitch, there's no way its going to be a strike even if its a 12-6 hook which few players know how to throw anymore. If F2 sets up outside and dives inside, you will never get any grief from a coach or fan if you call it a ball. Its its right down the middle and he reaches you might get away with it. Generally on a questionable call that hits the dirt or F2 reaches for it, the coach will tell the catcher, "if you catch it right its a strike" If the coach don't know the difference then you know what type of baseball you are dealing with. Thanks David |
Its not that simple!
Quote:
I don't think its that simple, the key is to be consistent. The thing most coaches forget is that the zone changes for each batter. Especially in HS, one guy is 5'3" and the next is 6'5". 1) As far as the curve you talked in #1 it depends to me where the hands are. I make the pitch cross below the hands. I've been trying to work on calling a higher zone and its hard since for years I have just not called the high strike. 2) If F2 drops the ball its not going to be a strike very often. If its a nice 12-6 curve ball and F2 catches it its a strike. The little slider probably not a strike. 3) That's a ball - and coaches won't say a word. 4) Depends on where he set up. If its a little off the plate strike. If he's a lot off the plate ball. (Coach will usually ask f2 was that outside etc., and F2 will agree) Thanks David |
I think it has a lot do with the level of baseball. At the college and pro level if you call that pitch a strike your better not be playing in an old wooden ball park. If you are you better call the fire department cause you are going to burn it down. High school i would not call a strike if the glove touches the ground. But I would work with the catcher that can't stick the pitch on the corners.
Clint Lawson Carolina League [email protected] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
2. Catcher leans over to catch one, or catches palm up, or looks the least been clumsey catching a low one. BALL. 3. BALL 4. I can't relate to pitches caught by LH catchers. I don't know what I would do. I would probably have my worst night unless the pitcher was real good. Number 5 you didn't mention: Fastball comes screaming in at the hollow beneath the knee, and catcher sticks it solid (a must), you can take that pitch if you want, but I will call it every time. I just love that pitch. |
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? |
Quote:
Why ? Because nobody is looking at the pitch, they are all looking at the runner. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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, |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Reading it slowly ...
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
"Strikes mean outs, outs mean games, games mean money." :D |
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Pitching was very good on both sides. Only a couple of complaints early on but by the time the 8th inning came along the losing team F1 was crying like a baby. My zone hadn't changed but as desperation set in (they were down 11-3) so did his dislike of my strike zone. The other F2 seemed to be enjoying my zone. Earlier in the day I worked bases at a HS varsity game where the PU called the pitch not where F2 caught the ball, much less resistance at that level. |
I think we still need to be clear that this has to be done based on the level you work. You cannot expect a JV catcher to be this precise and catch everything that well. I have seen college a catcher struggle trying to do this. I had a catcher in a college game this Monday that could not get catch the ball properly on many borderline pitches. I agree with the practice of making the catcher catch the ball properly, I just use it more on borderline pitches. A pitch down the middle there is not much a catcher can do to screw that up. Well, they could dive at the pitch if they are set up too far inside or outside.
Peace |
Five pages of responses and this article hasn't yet been mentioned?
http://www.amateurumpire.com/others/misc/porter02.htm I thought for sure that someone would have linked it already. It's been around for years and is a good example of how using the catcher's mitt can aid an umpire in calling balls and strikes. Anyhow...check it out. From a personal perspective, one pitch location that seems to be a thorn in my side is the down-the-middle, yet high, pitch that sticks the mitt. It might be right on the center of the plate, yet crosses the plate and batter at the armpits, obviously high and out of the zone. It doesn't "skim" the top of the zone and is, in fact, at least 6" out of the "midway from shoulders to waist" upper limit. I call this a ball and inevitably recieve grief from the pitcher or catcher. But, I stick to my guns and call it a ball all game. Anyone else have any thoughts or comments on this "down the middle, but obviously high" pitch location? |
Brett, that is the one pitch that can set off a crap storm. You get in more trouble calling that one a strike then not. I just leave it alone and concentrate on nailing the low strike, which to me is the place where you're reputation as a good "ball and strike" umpire is made or broken.
Just my 2 cents. Bob P. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31pm. |