Strike zone

[LMan]

Originally Posted by NIump50

All things being equal, if you see a strike and call a ball you're a coward.

***yawn***

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It's not what I meant. What I meant, really, was that pitchers throw pitches that start near the knee and finish near the knee and getting that pitch right is crucial.

OOPS! Sorry. ;-)

Could you explain a bit more about starting at the knee and finishing at the knee?

I'm trying to picture it but having difficulty.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by NIump50

Nothing to do with perception. He said a ball that catches the knee(i'm assuming over the plate) and then breaks to the dirt cannot be called a strike.
Are you suggesting we poll the audience before we make our calls?
I thought the ol umpire slogan was 'I call em the way I see em'

If everyone in the park thinks the hands are part of the bat, do I make my call based on there opinion?
If everyone in the park thinks a tie goes to the runner, do I make my call accordingly?
If everyone in the park thinks a foul tip is a foul ball should I rule foul ball?
I think you get my point.
Why should a pitch judged by you to have crossed the strike zone and picked cleanly by the catcher be called anything but a strike?
All things being equal, if you see a strike and call a ball you're a coward.

As the cliche goes, in a fight between you and the world, back the world.

The game has evolved over more than 100 years, and the fundamental truths that Tim and Rich are conveying are the universally accepted standards of practice that are known and accepted by all, with the possible exception of the parents of a 7 year old in his first year of coach-pitch.

Rich and Tee umpire BASEBALL; it appears you are umpiring NIump50-ball.

The people you are calling "lemmings" and "cowards" are, in fact, people who respect the game. You clearly believe you are bigger than the game. You need a mentor.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by buckweat

OOPS! Sorry. ;-)

Could you explain a bit more about starting at the knee and finishing at the knee?

I'm trying to picture it but having difficulty.

That's about the best way I can explain it. It's a pitch that starts down in the zone and stays down in the zone and if you're lazy, you'll give up on it and ball it. This is a strike, unlike that pitch caught at the ankles.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by Tim C

You have kinda sorta defined yourself as a low level, little guy umpire.

Let me explain:

1) There are two types of umpires: a) by the book and b) and 'real world' umpires.,

In the real world there are cowards, brown nosers, lemmings, pretenders, con men, men of integrity and law abiding citizens. We all choose our own path.

Originally Posted by Tim C

2) I don't expect you to agree.

Good, because I don't

Originally Posted by Tim C

3) Many of us work a pretty high quality of ball every day . . . trust us that we know what we speak of . .

See a strike call a ball. Give me one good reason that has some integrity.

Originally Posted by Tim C

4) Once you work a higher level of ball, get back to us, as your opinon 'may' change..,

When my backbone becomes mush my opinion may change.

Originally Posted by Tim C

All-in-all, I work my level, under my guidelines, and find that my success is just fine.

I never questioned your success. I simply questioned your statement that a ball over the plate at the knee that ends up in the dirt cannot be a strike.
You were adament about it.
You make sure you talk about the level of ball you ump every post, but I've yet to hear the justification of your statement.
Please tell me why a ball in the strike zone cannot be called a strike.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

As the cliche goes, in a fight between you and the world, back the world.

The game has evolved over more than 100 years, and the fundamental truths that Tim and Rich are conveying are the universally accepted standards of practice that are known and accepted by all, with the possible exception of the parents of a 7 year old in his first year of coach-pitch.

Rich and Tee umpire BASEBALL; it appears you are umpiring NIump50-ball.

The people you are calling "lemmings" and "cowards" are, in fact, people who respect the game. You clearly believe you are bigger than the game. You need a mentor.

When was the last time you saw a 7 year old with stuff that starts at the knee and ends up near the ankles?
It's not 7 year old stuff we're talking about.

I call a strike on a pitch I clearly see pass thru the strike zone and I'm disrespecting the game? Somethings wrong with this picture.
If it was a universally accepted and fundamental truth, why is it not written down? Why, in the past 100 years has some one not thought about putting this in the rules. "If a curve ball passes thru the strike zone, but has great movement and drops to the ankles, such pitch shall not be declared a strike"
Usually fundamental truths get written down. When something becomes universally accepted it gets adopted in the rules.
Please give me the rational behind a ball passing thru the zone being called a ball.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by DG

The "spot" is what gets the batter out. If a higher level pitcher throws a fastball 3 inches outside on an 0-2 count it's because he meant to, not because he missed, so call it a ball. If he then throws one on the edge of the black outside, it's because he meant to, knowing that you will not call it 3 inches outside, so call it a strike.

The spot is a welled placed pitch, under a given situation.

I surely won’t argue, but your opinion about how accurately a P can throw a ball is vastly different than what I’ve seen or been told. No biggie.

Can I assume that where the C is seeing up is having an effect on your call? FI, if the C set up inside on that 2nd pitch it’d be a ball.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

That's about the best way I can explain it. It's a pitch that starts down in the zone and stays down in the zone and if you're lazy, you'll give up on it and ball it. This is a strike, unlike that pitch caught at the ankles.

Now that I can picture and understand. Thanx!

I sure hope you guys understand that I’m not just doin’ this rile anyone. I’m truly interested in finding out why things work the way they do, and its exchanges like this thread that help do that. I’ve just never been one of those guys who takes, "IT IS WHAT IT IS" for an answer, without some kind of reasonable explanation.

Along these same lines, if anyone’s ever had the dubious pleasure of being “graded” by QuesTec”, I’d sure like to know exactly what the purpose of the thing is, and what exactly it is that you see when you throw the DVD in the player.

I’d also be curious to know how it would “score” one of those pitches that seems to be bringing out such angst. I.e., a pitch that crosses the zone at the bottom and front of the plate, but hits the dirt in front of the C.

[DG]

Originally Posted by buckweat

I surely won’t argue, but your opinion about how accurately a P can throw a ball is vastly different than what I’ve seen or been told. No biggie.

Can I assume that where the C is seeing up is having an effect on your call? FI, if the C set up inside on that 2nd pitch it’d be a ball.

If the pitcher can't hit the spot then there is no spot. And hell yes, how the catcher catches it is a factor. If he is set up inside and the pitch is on the black outside, it's a ball. The spot is where you and the catcher expect it to be, and when it ain't, well it ain't.

I called a 2-0 game yesterday with 2 pitcher's who went the distance for their team. Both were hitting the spots, the game lasted 1:40 and I heard no complaints from anyone about balls and strikes, because when they hit the spot and I called a strike and when they didn't it was because they were trying to get the batter to swing at one that was not on the spot. Sometimes they swing at a pitch off the spot, and sometimes they don't. I only called one K looking and he walked off before I made the call, because he knew...

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NIump50

so if a pitcher has the ability to throw such a pitch and spot it in the perfect position why would you call it crap? I call it talent and a damn good pitch.
Think through your reasoning
a pitch hits the strike zone and you don't call it.
Under normal circumstances I see only 2 possible reasons.
1. You're a lemming. If no one else is going to call a strike a strike neither am I. I'm following the crowd.
or
2. You're a coward. I want to appease the crowd and coaches. The ball is picked at the ankles and the path of least resistance is a called ball, despite the fact that i saw it catch the knee over the plate. I'm going to penalize the pitcher because I don't want to take the heat.

If there is another reason for calling it a ball please enlighten me.

3. Because that is the way it is done when working shaving age players. There. That is the other reason. Neither one of the other two reasons you listed are applicable.

The only pitcher I've ever umpired with a good enough curve to call a strike if it hit the dirt was Barry Zito, and his catcher knew enough to pick it clean and not allow it to hit the ground!

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

3. Because that is the way it is done when working shaving age players. There. That is the other reason. Neither one of the other two reasons you listed are applicable.

The only pitcher I've ever umpired with a good enough curve to call a strike if it hit the dirt was Barry Zito, and his catcher knew enough to pick it clean and not allow it to hit the ground!

I'm asking a legit question. Why?

"because" doesn't usually suffice as a knowledgable answer.
When you were taught this undeniable truth that if a pitch clearly passes thru the strike zone but breaks to the dirt it must be called a ball
Did you ask why?
And was the answer "because"
Where is the fairness in calling a ball clearly seen in the strike zone a ball?

Why do you reward the batter when the pitcher makes a great pitch?

[TussAgee11]

Yea there is.

Because when I see it hit the dirt, I see a ball. It has nothing to do with everyone else in the park. It has everything to do with me seeing a ball. So I call it how I see it.

I don't see strikes when the ball hits the dirt. I call them how I see them. You see it differently. I have guidelines for a strike that are different from yours.

So accept diversity, and act like an adult.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I'm asking a legit question. Why?

"because" doesn't usually suffice as a knowledgable answer.
When you were taught this undeniable truth that if a pitch clearly passes thru the strike zone but breaks to the dirt it must be called a ball
Did you ask why?
And was the answer "because"
Where is the fairness in calling a ball clearly seen in the strike zone a ball?

Why do you reward the batter when the pitcher makes a great pitch?

You just call strikes where you see them. You don't have to listen to any of the experienced umpires that roam this board. What do any of us know right?

The fact that some umpires on the board call upper level ball doesn't mean a thing....what do we know. Don't listen to us, we are obviously doing things wrong and are cowards plus we lack integrity.

If you want to call pitches in the dirt strikes you go right ahead. In fact why don't you call some pitches up around the arm pits strikes too.

What level ball do you work and where do you work? I'd love to come see you work.....maybe I'd learn what it's like to have integrity and courage.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by NIump50

so if a pitcher has the ability to throw such a pitch and spot it in the perfect position why would you call it crap? I call it talent and a damn good pitch.

If the pitcher had spotted the pitch in a perfect position it wouldn't have been handled near the dirt by the catcher. A good battery knows this and will work with each other, as well as us to "prove" the pitch. I'll tell you what, the CWS from Omaha will be televised soon. Why don't you watch those games and tell us how many pitches breaking down into the dirt are being called strikes. Hell, they won't even give the pitcher a strike if the catcher turns his glove over to handle the pitch.

Originally Posted by NIump50

Think through your reasoning
a pitch hits the strike zone and you don't call it.
Under normal circumstances I see only 2 possible reasons.
1. You're a lemming. If no one else is going to call a strike a strike neither am I. I'm following the crowd.
or

You're darn right I'm following the crowd. The crowd of individuals I'm following are the traditionalists in baseball officiating who are calling the game as it's intended. The players and the coaches of both teams know that no competent umpire will call that crap a strike in a game played by players over 13 years of age. Why do you feel you're larger than the established tradition of the game?

Originally Posted by NIump50

2. You're a coward. I want to appease the crowd and coaches. The ball is picked at the ankles and the path of least resistance is a called ball, despite the fact that i saw it catch the knee over the plate. I'm going to penalize the pitcher because I don't want to take the heat.

If there is another reason for calling it a ball please enlighten me.

A coward? Maybe, but a coward who understands his place in the game. I'm not going to allow my game to turn into a $hit$torm because I'm calling my strike zone as something they're not accustomed to seeing. Game management 101. When you start calling games for coaches who are paid to coach, and players looking for scholarships you'll come to understand this. Hell, high school is the highest level of ball I work, and the guys you're arguing with work even higher levels than that. They didn't get to that level by inserting themselves into the game.


Tim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by NIump50

When was the last time you saw a 7 year old with stuff that starts at the knee and ends up near the ankles?
It's not 7 year old stuff we're talking about.

I call a strike on a pitch I clearly see pass thru the strike zone and I'm disrespecting the game? Somethings wrong with this picture.
If it was a universally accepted and fundamental truth, why is it not written down? Why, in the past 100 years has some one not thought about putting this in the rules. "If a curve ball passes thru the strike zone, but has great movement and drops to the ankles, such pitch shall not be declared a strike"
Usually fundamental truths get written down. When something becomes universally accepted it gets adopted in the rules.
Please give me the rational behind a ball passing thru the zone being called a ball.

Because it's not the way "anyone" wants the game called. It's part of the "art" of calling strikes, not part of the "science" of calling strikes. The "science" part can be written, the "art" part can't.

It's similar to the "high strike" in MLB. For years, no one called it, and "no one" wanted it called. Umpires were graded down if they did call it.

But, times change, and now they want it called, and umpires are graded on it, and it is called.

So, too, may the time come when a curve that catches the knee and ends up at the ankle be called a strike. And, since change doesn't happen in all areas and for all umpires at the same time, the change may already be happening in your area. For most of us, though, any such change is not here.