Strike zone

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by NIump50

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

Because it is the “accepted practice” as I would call it. There are plenty of things in sports and life that, although they don’t jib with the rules, are the “accepted practice”.

A perfect example would be the ‘neighborhood play” at second base in MLB. According to the rules, the pivot man must be touching the base with the ball to get the out, but the “accepted practice” is that the pivot man just be in the area of second base with the ball to get the out. It is the same thing as the ball in the dirt. Sure, technically, it was probably a strike, but the “accepted practice” at the high school level, if not lower, and on up is that a pitch in the dirt or scooped just off the dirt is going to get called a ball.

[cbfoulds]

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?

OK: how about - YOU are the ONLY person, on or off the field who will believe that you called that pitch a strike? Everyone else, probably including the kid who threw it, and definitely including the kid that caught it, will see a pitch that hits the ground before it gets to F2 as a ball. The D coach will not ***** [until you call that a strike on HIS batter], but he'll figgure you missed one in his favor.

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"art" of calling strikes

Bob, how about "The Art of Calling Pitches". It's part of a series of booklets that have been publish and sell quite well (one guess as to who wrote them).

Now, let me say this;

60' Diamond or 90' Diamond with 13 YRO - See a Strike, Call a Strike.

90' Diamond with 14 YRO and up - See a Strike that looks like a Ball, Call a Ball.

This is what is expected of an umpire, even if that is not what an umpire expects to do. It's not really our choice, it's how the game is played.

If you don't like this philosophy, that's OK, just stay at the 13 YRO level and down, and you will do well, and be well. The game needs great umpires at all levels.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by nickrego

Bob, how about "The Art of Calling Pitches". It's part of a series of booklets that have been publish and sell quite well (one guess as to who wrote them).

Now, let me say this;

60' Diamond or 90' Diamond with 13 YRO - See a Strike, Call a Strike.

90' Diamond with 14 YRO and up - See a Strike that looks like a Ball, Call a Ball.

This is what is expected of an umpire, even if that is not what an umpire expects to do. It's not really our choice, it's how the game is played.

If you don't like this philosophy, that's OK, just stay at the 13 YRO level and down, and you will do well, and be well. The game needs great umpires at all levels.

I rarely do 13 or younger but i'll keep it in mind.
I was always taught- See a strike call a strike-and whenever you can, steal a strike.
What's the point in stealing a strike if you're going to give it back on the next pitch?
I hear what you're saying, I just don't agree with the philosophy.
The nieghborhood play was probably prevalent at the HS level years ago, but less and less these days, especially with FPSR.
Things change. Most all curve balls that end up in the dirt never enter the strike zone. On the rare occasion it does, it's obvious the pitcher has a special curve. I have no problems selling that strike because the coaches see the stuff on the ball as well as me. If they don't like it I'm not very concerned.
On only the rarest of occasions will I pass on a legitimate strike.
On very close pitches when the catcher doesn't stick it, and I'm not sure if it caught the corner I certainly ball it.
If I clearly see the pitch in the strike zone I don't care what the catcher does as long as he keeps it off me.

[Paul L]

This thread has helped me, a second-year ump, understand my strike zone tremendously. So thank you, buckweat and NIump50 for asking the questions. I appreciate your courages. And thank you to Rich Fronheiser, BigUmp56, Tim C, nickrego and others for their experienced viewpoint.

The catch affecting the call sounds like part of the "make the expected call even if it conflicts with the black-letter rule" philosophy that is hard to accept at first. I don't see it clearly yet, but I'm starting to, having digested Jim Porter's Ten Unwritten Rules of Calling Balls and Strikes. It sounds like the big dogs take make-the-expected-call for granted. Is it that the oral traditiion fleshes out the rule skeleton?

I use the ovoid bullet strike zone. I'm cutting my teeth on mustangs and broncos (9/10s and 11/12s), where four balls equals a double or a triple, due to ease of stealing. The defined strike zone is knee hollow to nipples, but I'll expand it a ballswidth or two middle high and middle out, and half to a full ballswidth middle low and middle in, depending on the skill level. I can't articlulate my corner calls just yet, but I'm working on it. But PU's can't rely on many F2's at that level to help make calls. I try hardest to be consistent.

[Tim C]

I think perhaps that you have identified the issue we all deal with one day:

As noted there are "black letter rule" guys and "usage and tradition guys."

I have found over the years on the internet that "black letter rules guys" take great umbrage to the "real world" guys. The inverse does not seem to be true.

NIUmp50 has been painted as unreasonable. It may seem that on the surface but his points need to be considered. The question soon becomes: "gee, what other rules do you guys ignore."

My answer: "Several." Remember I am a guy that only calls balks that EVERYONE sees . . . I select to ignore technical balks.

This is what separates great umpires (i.e. those that get the "Big Game" assignments) and those that twist in the land of also-ran games.

But that is just my view. I am sure that NIUmp50 gets just as many important games as I do . . . we just see umpiring differently.

I know of NO UMPIRE in shaving aged games that would call a strike that bounces into the catcher's mitt. None.

Perhaps NIUmp50 works in a region where this is a common occurance.

It is just too obvious from the posts in this thread that the view professed by umpires like myself appears, on first blush, to be what is accepted universally.

Except of course, in games viewed by "black letter law" umpires.

This is all just opinion and I hope you can separate the chaf and learn something from the thread.

Regards,

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I think perhaps that you have identified the issue we all deal with one day:

As noted there are "black letter rule" guys and "usage and tradition guys."

I have found over the years on the internet that "black letter rules guys" take great umbrage to the "real world" guys. The inverse does not seem to be true.

NIUmp50 has been painted as unreasonable. It may seem that on the surface but his points need to be considered. The question soon becomes: "gee, what other rules do you guys ignore."

My answer: "Several." Remember I am a guy that only calls balks that EVERYONE sees . . . I select to ignore technical balks.

This is what separates great umpires (i.e. those that get the "Big Game" assignments) and those that twist in the land of also-ran games.

But that is just my view. I am sure that NIUmp50 gets just as many important games as I do . . . we just see umpiring differently.

I know of NO UMPIRE in shaving aged games that would call a strike that bounces into the catcher's mitt. None.

Perhaps NIUmp50 works in a region where this is a common occurance.

It is just too obvious from the posts in this thread that the view professed by umpires like myself appears, on first blush, to be what is accepted universally.

Except of course, in games viewed by "black letter law" umpires.

This is all just opinion and I hope you can separate the chaf and learn something from the thread.

Regards,

I think you're painting with a wide brush.
I grew up in baseball as a pitcher, my two sons are accomplished pitchers.
I have a soft spot for pitchers. On this particular issue, I choose not to punish a great pitch for the sake of making the expected call, instead I see by rule, a strike, and call it.
So on this issue I am a 'black letter ump', as I am on the FPSR.
Many other rules like the balks I'm more 'real world', another example is the phantom tag. When a fielder makes a quick tag move and pulls up to avoid the spikes I usually give the out even if he misses the tag.
There's HS umps out there still today that are so 'real world' they refuse to enter the 21st century and call FPSR. They're still stuck on OBR.
So if I differ from the pack on one issue and on that issue I am within the rules, does that make me a bad umpire? Should I not be allowed on the field with kids that shave?
Being black letter is not always a bad thing. After all we are umpires not rules makers.

Oh, and regarding this statement:

Originally Posted by Tim C

I have found over the years on the internet that "black letter rules guys" take great umbrage to the "real world" guys. The inverse does not seem to be true.

Please go back and reread the thread.
#24 my first opinion of the subject. I was only giving my opinion no umbrage taken. No personal attacks and no inferences about those who differ from my opinion.
#35 You say "no umpire of quality" could call a ball in the dirt a strike.
You took 'umbrage' and attacked my 'black letter' interpretation of the strike zone and inferred I could not be a quality ump.
How can you maintain credibility and make statements like the above quote?

[BigUmp56]

He's right, Tee. You should have said "no quality umpire working games beyond 60' kiddie ball" will call that pitch a strike.


That's what you get for becoming a kinder gentler Tee these days. Offer up an olive branch and have it thrown back at you.


Tim.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

That's what you get for becoming a kinder gentler Tee these days. Offer up an olive branch and have it thrown back at you.

Even the wisest and most honored amongst us need to be held accountable for their words.
Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

He's right, Tee. You should have said "no quality umpire working games beyond 60' kiddie ball" will call that pitch a strike..

A young newlywed was preparing a pot roast for her new husband.
As she began her preparation her husband watched her cut 2" off both ends of the roast and asked "Why did you cut the ends off the roast"
She replied "that's what you do to a roast" he says "why" she, a bit aggrevated now says "because". "Because why" her husband says irritably.
"Because that's the way my Mom taught me" she said finally. "Why did she cut the ends off?" he says with frustration. "I don't know" she replied a bit bashfully, "let's call her and find out". So they call Mom. "Mom" says the beautifl newlywed, "why do we cut the ends off the roast". Mom, a bit surprised by the question is silent for a moment. "mom you there?" "Yes dear" mom finally says. "so why do we cut the ends off?" "Because" was all mom could say. Now the husband starts to laugh and says "Mom, there has to be a reason". "That's the way your Grandma taught me honey and that's the way i taught you, maybe you should call grandma and ask her"
So they make the call to grandma.
"Grandma, why do we cut the ends off the roast?"
Grandma very matter of factly says "I have to cut off the ends for it to fit in my small pan"

So is an answer " because that's the way it is" necessarily a valid one?
Someone started the practice of not calling a curveball that passes thru the zone but ends up near the dirt a ball. There was a beginning to this 'accepted practice'
Why did they do it? Could it be that in the 1800s the umps were just there to make the expected call?

Maybe no pitcher back then was capable of throwing a curve that could actually be a strike and end up in the dirt. So any pitch in the dirt was an easy ball call. It became accepted as absolute, but when pitchers evolved and got better maybe the umps never did. Maybe the game went beyond the umpires ability. Maybe they just got lazy.
If any of this is the case, does it justify the call today? Does the newlywed have to waste 4" of roast just because grandma did?
Just asking.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by NIump50

Maybe no pitcher back then was capable of throwing a curve that could actually be a strike and end up in the dirt. So any pitch in the dirt was an easy ball call. It became accepted as absolute, but when pitchers evolved and got better maybe the umps never did. Maybe the game went beyond the umpires ability. Maybe they just got lazy.
If any of this is the case, does it justify the call today? Does the newlywed have to waste 4" of roast just because grandma did?
Just asking.

Do you really think that you are going to convince anyone to start calling pitches in the dirt strikes? I'm not going to do it no matter how many pot roast stories you come up with.

Speaking of pot roasts, if my grandma said cut 4" off the roast then start cutting. She was the best cook I've ever known. Hey wait, maybe these pot roast cutting umpires, I mean the cowards that won't call pitches in the dirt strikes, might be the best umpires you've ever seen...watch them and learn

[Tim C]

"Real Umpires" (tm) don't call strikes that bounce in the dirt.

Nuff' said . . . NIUmp50 gets it -- he's just chasing wind mills.

I tried.

Regards,

[gsf23]

Well, I guess high school kids are the only ones able to throw those types of curveballs because I have never, ever seen an umpire in college, minors or the pros call a pitch in the dirt a strike no matter how much it broke.

I guess then that you call the opposite pitch a ball? That’s curve that hits the catcher’s mitt when he is set up right in the middle of the zone. I mean, if he can break it off enough to be above the knees and in the dirt when it reaches the catcher, then if it’s right in the middle of the zone or maybe a little of the top half of the zone when caught, it was probably high when it entered the zone. Or is that one of those strikes you try to “steal”.

[LMan]

Called a travel-team game last night, good pitchers on both sides. F2 sets up tight inside, almost completely closes the slot. Fastball goes way outside, nicks the outside corner but F2 has to lurch way over to snag it and he almost falls to his knees.

"Ball!"


"aaaah, Blue, he crossed me up."

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by Justme

Do you really think that you are going to convince anyone to start calling pitches in the dirt strikes? I'm not going to do it no matter how many pot roast stories you come up with.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I've offered my opinion and explained why I call it the way I do. I've asked those with different opinions why.
So far I've got "because" and because that's the way Grandpa did it.

Originally Posted by Justme

Speaking of pot roasts, if my grandma said cut 4" off the roast then start cutting. She was the best cook I've ever known. Hey wait, maybe these pot roast cutting umpires, I mean the cowards that won't call pitches in the dirt strikes, might be the best umpires you've ever seen...watch them and learn

It has nothing to do...... never mind, if I have to explain the point of the story it's obvious the skull is a bit too thick.

Actually I have absolutely no problem with it being called a ball. Most all umpires have slightly different zones, and none of them affect me. You can call a cockshot a ball if the catcher has his head cocked the wrong way for all I care. (Unless I'm your P, then I prefer not to be on the bases for 3 1/2 hours)

This forum is set up to share opinions, that's what I did. It's also set up to ask questions. That's what I did. The answers have been revealing.
What's been more revealing is the judgements made against me for not following a tradition that no one has a clue why it started.

Look, if I had to conform to the crowd on this issue to get high level games then I would have to make a decision, if I decided to make that change at least I would know why I was doing it. BTW, it's never come to that.

Also, BTW, if you've never been true to the strike zone on this issue, how do you know what reaction, or lack thereof you'll get and how do you know what assignments you will or won't get?

If you grow up only hearing what sex with a girl is like from a bunch of gay guys then you might not ever have a desire to try it. You may even make judgements and accusations upon those who are enjoying such activities, never realizing how wrong you really are.

[LMan]

"True to the strike zone?"



"Well, Smitty, how was your game today?"
"Not so good, Wally, I feel like I betrayed the strike zone."