plate mechanic

[dokeeffe]

As all of us who have officiated for more than a few years know that accepted mechanics change from time to time. Everything from plate umpire positioning behind the dish to responsibilities on the bases has seen modification.

The editor of this site has maintained (I believe) that there is no good reason to "explain" a pitch. You know, like "Ball - outside!" I've noticed over the past few years that there are D1 and Pro Umpires that are doing just that, especially on a close pitch. I've changed after a zillion years on a baseball field and feel it has helped keep some coaches in check. I don't get the "where was that pitch?" comment anymore.

Carl has argued that you don't expalin a strike so why a ball? The simple answer is that explaining a strike is not a preventive device. You saw a strike - no one cares where. On the other hand if you saw a close pitch that was down, the pitcher, his catcher and his coach care, and in fact so does the batter. "Explaining" that pitch just might keep a coach, pitcher or catcher in the game. From my experience it certainly helps limit the barking from the dugoutand frankly it's that's number one on my list for the mechanic.

What say you?

[BigUmp56]

I say I don't like the idea. Personally I don't think we need to editorialize each close pitch that we call a ball. First we'll be saying "ball - outside", then the rat is going to want a measurement on how far outside the pitch was. Was it outside by an inch? Two?

Then there's the argument that this will lead to more confrontations than it's worth. For example, you call a pitch a ball that's low out of the zone and tell the coach that's where it missed. Now, for the rest of the game he'll be snipping that every low strike you call against his team hit the same spot that you previously called a ball for his pitcher.


Tim.

[LMan]

I have never 'announced' the location of a ball, although sometimes if it was verrrry close and the call obviously surprised the catcher, I will quietly tell him where it was, just to pre-empt the inevitable question....

[ctblu40]

I never editorialize my calls behind the dish. If a coach asks (without screaming at me) I'll tell him a couple of times but won't let him ask on every pitch outside the zone. I'll usually quietly tell the catcher "A little up/down in/out and I'll get that one," if its really close.
IMO, ball-low or something similar just invites more comments.

[Tim C]

I have followed the emerging mechanic of MLB guys . . .

When a pitch is very close AND important I give the description of where I called the miss.

Remember, for decades, we were trained to give "subtle" signals for ALL calls of "BALL."

To me, giving the description immediately stops: "where was that BLUE?"

To each their own . . .

Regards,

[Always Wright]

I agree whole heartedly with T. I have heard many of the big league umps announcing the location of a ball. I have been doing it for several years now without a problem. I joined a new association a couple of years ago (I have been umpiring 26 years) and went to one of their training sessions. When going to the pitching machine station, the instructor stated emphatically that you should never give the location of a pitch when calling it a ball. When one of the other newbies asked if he should answer a coach if the coach asked him where the pitch was, the instructor told him sure, as long as it's done politely and not on every pitch. When I then asked why not say it on the pitch and avoid the question, I was not given any logical explanation. In my experience, it has greatly reduced the amount of conversation that takes place between me, the pitcher, the catcher, and the coach. Those that choose to argue after I make the call were going to argue anyway.

Chris Wright

[BlueLawyer]

What happens at the MLB level is not always good for the amatuer umpire. How many of us have been to a school/camp/clinic with a big league guy who tells us, "Do X." You say, "But Mr. Crawford/Hallion/Welke, I have seen you do Y." To which he inevitably says, "I'm teaching you the RIGHT way, which is not necessarily what I do."

I think explaining a pitch is not smart at any level below MLB, and since I don't work there, I'm just going to keep saying "ball" until somebody tells me differently.

Strikes and outs!

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by LMan

I have never 'announced' the location of a ball, although sometimes if it was verrrry close and the call obviously surprised the catcher, I will quietly tell him where it was, just to pre-empt the inevitable question....

I'm with you LMan. My mechanics exactly.

Now, I know there are lots of umpires at all levels, that will look to the side where a pitch was outside (can't see that from the dugout), as an indication of where it missed, which I think is fine. But there is NO need to indicate if a pitch was High or Low, as you can see that from the dugout.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by nickrego

But there is NO need to indicate if a pitch was High or Low, as you can see that from the dugout.

normally i'd agree with this, but i had a coach who was whining about high/low and apparently wasn't paying attention at least on this particular pitch....F1 lets one loose and its easily 2 feet above the batters head, but it makes a sweet sounding, loud pop into F2s glove (the sound associated with a 'good' pitch to some). everyone in the park who was looking even out of the corner of their eye knew this ball was 8 feet off the ground...but that coach yells out "come on! tell me where that missed! are you even watching?" one of his assistants goes "tom, just shut the hell up please. you look like more of an idiot now. lets watch the game."

[PeteBooth]

What say you?

[/QUOTE]
It's a matter of preference. it's not a right / wrong answer. It's what works best for you.

With the exception of high quality baseball I would not recommend it.

Why!

Depending upon the nature of the game your strike zone may change and a pitch you called a ball and verbalized outside may now be a strike because of the way the game is progressing.

Another drawback of verbalizing location is when you "Miss it" No matter how good of a plate person you are, no one gets evey pitch correct. Therefore what are you going to say when you missed it.

Generally speaking I do not verbalize location. In addition that is the accepted practice in the association for which I work.

Pete Booth

[archangel]

Depending upon the nature of the game your strike zone may change and a pitch you called a ball and verbalized outside may now be a strike because of the way the game is progressing.



Since when does the progression of the game decide a strike zone ?. Yes, we all make mistakes, but I really try to keep a consistant zone ALL GAME LONG.

[NickG]

"Depending upon the nature of the game your strike zone may change and a pitch you called a ball and verbalized outside may now be a strike because of the way the game is progressing."

Oh, I see a long and disturbing thread brewing -- maybe as heated as the "strike" in the dirt grazing the edge of the zone thread we had not long ago.

Wandering zones aside (which I don't subscribe to, BTW), I add myself to the list of those who announces on close pitches inside/outside (never high/low). The dugouts can see high/low, and if they ask me on these, they're sniping, and I say so. In/out, on the other hand, can't be seen from the side. Everyone's happier, it seems, if everyone knows where a pitch missed. And I like happy -- especially when it's me!

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by NickG

I add myself to the list of those who announces on close pitches inside/outside (never high/low). The dugouts can see high/low, and if they ask me on these, they're sniping, and I say so. In/out, on the other hand, can't be seen from the side. Everyone's happier, it seems, if everyone knows where a pitch missed. And I like happy -- especially when it's me!

I have no quarrel one way or the other relative to announcing inside or outside, but I do have a comment as to sniping.
As a coach, you don't have to be very smart to figure why a pitch was called a ball. If a coach sees the ball is not hi or lo then he knows it is inside or outside, that's perfectly logical. Based on the catchers position and glove placement no coach is going to confuse an outside pitch with an inside pitch.

My point
It's sniping either way!

99% of the time the coach knows the answer in/out hi/lo before he asks the question. He's only asking to make a point and if he's inclined to make a point he'll make it one way or the other.

[DG]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I have no quarrel one way or the other relative to announcing inside or outside, but I do have a comment as to sniping.
As a coach, you don't have to be very smart to figure why a pitch was called a ball. If a coach sees the ball is not hi or lo then he knows it is inside or outside, that's perfectly logical. Based on the catchers position and glove placement no coach is going to confuse an outside pitch with an inside pitch.

My point
It's sniping either way!

99% of the time the coach knows the answer in/out hi/lo before he asks the question. He's only asking to make a point and if he's inclined to make a point he'll make it one way or the other.

After the top of the first tonight I hear an assistant tell the manager that I am calling a ball and a half off the plate a strike so tell the batters to swing at that pitch. And at that point in the game I don't think I had called anything that was off the black. Simply amazing how well coaches can call 'em from the dugout.

[pdxblue]

Originally Posted by archangel

[/I]
Since when does the progression of the game decide a strike zone ?. Yes, we all make mistakes, but I really try to keep a consistant zone ALL GAME LONG.

If you were being evaluated by NCAA standards, and you kept your same strike zone in a lpsided game, you would get dinged for keeping that zone. http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/cham...PreviewState=0

Also, you can see in those standards too that the Gerry Davis stance is totally discouraged! I agree with that one for sure!!!