Sending a "message"

[TheSlav]

To those in the "anti-FYC" crowd:

Are you saying that in all your travels then you have never "given" a pitcher who is consistently hitting the black or the spot where the catcher holds his glove, even if it might be slightly outside the rule book definition of the strike zone? Never? Ever?

One of our jobs is to call balls and strikes. That's just ONE of our jobs. It's a strike when we say it's a strike and a ball when we say it's a ball. Period. End of story. That's the nexus of the conversation, what happens after one of the participants that has no business in the ball/strike decision making process, decides he wants to inject himself into that process. Anyone who does that in my opinion is already on thin ice to begin with, halfway to the parking lot.

One of our other jobs is to ensure that the standards of good sportsmanship are adhered to by the participants. Punishment/Reward. And the rulebook also give us some flexibility in this regard, it doesn't since it doesn't say you MUST eject it says you MAY eject. Or words to that effect.

Many umpires reward pitchers who are consistently "on the black" and hitters like Ted Williams with a SZ that others do not receive. Are these umpires liars, dishonest, hurting the integrity of the game?

Guys call pitches a strike for many reasons and many human factors go into it, including the rule-book definition and a punishment/reward analysis. If some of you are trying to tell me you are Robo-Ump and don't allow any of these factors influence you, let's just say I would have to see it to believe it.

See if you can apply your logic, ethics and standards to the above questions and get back to me if you will. I'd be interested in the responses.

Just as each individual umpires SZ is different so too is each umpires interpretation of the concept of ethics.

Some of the responses are a bit surprising to me in that if I were standing behind the fence with the batters Dad and he questioned a ball/strike call in a manner that would not draw an auto-heave-ho (drawing a line in the dirt, etc.) but clearly required a response from the ump, if the ump ejected him, I would say to the Dad, "He had it coming, he can't react like that." If the ump talked to him or warned him, same thing. If he gave him a FYC call, no problem. The only action I would have a problem with is if he clearly did nothing about it.

I think I would have my partners back on this regardless.

The question of ethical concerns are a bit overdone and maybe somewhat misplaced in this discussion IMO. I'm fairly certain that my occasional and judicious use of an FYC call is not even going to be in the conversation with St. Peter. What the fans/coaches/players opinion of my strike zone is a non-issue. Pandering to that crowd is a zero sum game you cannot possibly win.

Fire away.