Strike zone

[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 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”.

What's all the fuss with GD stance and locking in good head position and all that crap. Heck, I can have all the movement I want, I just have to see the position of the catchers mitt. That's pretty easy. I don't need to see the pitch cross the plate. Apparently I'm only there to judge mitt location and style.
I'll give you a 5 for mitt location but only a 3 for style. BALL 1
Mitt location good give you a 7 but oh you missed the ball and it hit me 1 for style Ball 2
Great breaking pitch ahh sorry palms up Ball 3
You expected that 2 seamer on the inside not on the outside corner didn't you? shame shame Ball 4

[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."

[wsttxump]

This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about.

2) If you are going to call this pitch expect (2) things.
A) Ejections
B) You are not coming back to that park and/or conference.

Higher level games are "perception", Like it or nor that is the way it is. This is the "accepted" way to call the game. Like the "neighborhood" call or the swipe tag is the "accepted" way to call the game.

In the game of baseball there are numerous unwritten rules.
1) Large lead, no stealing or bunts.
2) Pitcher will protect batters and fielders.
3) No showing anyone up.
etc.
etc.

The other thing to think about is your partner you are working with. If you are calling that pitch a strike (the one and only time you are at that park) be prepared for your partner to call the assignor and say "no way am I working with him again" because the job you are doing reflects on you and your partner and you will bring him into this circus.

The rule book is black and white but you have to understand how the game is played and why it is played that way. There are plenty of things that will happen if you are looking for a sh**storm. Don't cause one by picking to call pitches that are down at ground level.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by NIump50

................... 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.

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.

Now I'm a thick headed gay man? You were doing better when grandma was cutting 4" off the pot roast.

It's obvious from your post that you do very low level "baby ball". Nothing at all wrong with that I enjoy doing those youth games sometimes too, but the strike zone is different. The zone I call for 10 year olds is not the same as for players in their 20's+.

Bottom line is simple....if you want to call strikes that you observe caught the lower limit of the "true strike zone" and end up in the dirt then do it. But I can assure you that any assignor looking at you for higher level games will not be thrilled. You need to learn that IF you want to advance up in the umpire ranks you will call the game they way it is expected.....

So my answer to your question "Why call the pitches in the dirt balls?" Because that's the accepted way of doing it, it's what every one expects & wants, and it's what you'll be evaluated on. Is it the right things to do? Based on this you bet.....

Finally, I have tried to "be true to the strike zone", as you call it, and had the worst game of my life..... Both sides hated my zone, the fans hated my zone, the guy from my association observing me hated my zone, my assignor hated my zone, Even my dog bit me for calling those pitches caught in the dirt strikes.