Strike zone

[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.

[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.

[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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I was always taught- See a strike call a strike-and whenever you can, steal a strike.

Just got around to reading this thread and that is the most unrealistic post I've seen in a while.

Steal a strike? If you're calling balls in the dirt you're not only stealing them, you're giving them away.

Comments from most of my games - "come on **** (F2's name), you catch that ball and its a strike. (Close pitches that F2 misses or drops)

Sometimes coaches know the reality of baseball better than umpires.

Thanks
David

[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.