Catching Ettiquette

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Rufus

I was watching the a LL WS qualifier this weekend and noticed that the catchers from Washington were "pulling" pitches into the strike zone, sometimes by seemingly large distances.

I coach catchers and one of the things I stress is that they shouldn't "pull" pitches that are not strikes and try to make them look like strikes. I've been told umpires view this as disrespectful and an attempt to deceive. By all means I coach them to catch strikes as strikes (i.e., not to let the glove move after being caught and there are framing techniques that don't involve pulling pitches).

Can you all help me understand how you view "pulling" pitches and whether or not this is a hot-button issue for you? I'm not implying/saying you would change your calls based on what the catcher is/isn't doing (you know your strike zone and if the ball was in there). My interest is in trying to figure out how best to communicate to the kids I coach how you view the whole issue of framing (good, keep strikes strikes) and pulling (not good, trying to make a ball a strike).

Thanks in advance.

I don't care where the catcher catches the pitch. I've seen what I need to see before then. I just use him catching the ball as a timing mechanism. If I'm getting flack from the coach because the catcher is framing, I give the catcher an opportunity (between innings) to let the coach know where the pitch was and it was framed nicely.

-Josh

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I don't care where the catcher catches the pitch. I've seen what I need to see before then. I just use him catching the ball as a timing mechanism. If I'm getting flack from the coach because the catcher is framing, I give the catcher an opportunity (between innings) to let the coach know where the pitch was and it was framed nicely.

-Josh

"Some times calling balls and strikes is like being a detective. We need to use all available clues including what we saw as the ball crossed the plate, where the batter and catcher set up, where the catcher caught the ball, how the catcher caught the ball..." John McSherry, circa 1980

So then, you disagree with John?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

"Some times calling balls and strikes is like being a detective. We need to use all available clues including what we saw as the ball crossed the plate, where the batter and catcher set up, where the catcher caught the ball, how the catcher caught the ball..." John McSherry, circa 1980

So then, you disagree with John?

Absolutely, that was the point of my statement. I set out to disagree with John McSherry

-Josh

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Absolutely, that was the point of my statement. I set out to disagree with John McSherry

-Josh

Hmmmmmmm. Poor John. It's a shame he didn't have your abilities. He might have become a top plate umpire. Oh, wait. He was THE top plate umpire.

[jdmara]

Sorry Gentleman that I missed all of the action the past day...I guess I'll explain myself as it seems I've been misread with my sarcastic comment and poorly formed response.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Hmmmmmmm. Poor John. It's a shame he didn't have your abilities. He might have become a top plate umpire. Oh, wait. He was THE top plate umpire.

Obviously you missed the sarcasm, next time I'll put fancy brackets or something around it to differentiate it. I thought it was pretty obvious since nothing was said about John before my initial comment and then you put a quote of his and say I disagree. *shrug*

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Josh,

No, you have not.

You do not understand what "timing" is, and I assure you there is no "mechanism".

JM

You're absolutely right, I oversimplified my statement about a catcher's techniquie and then equated it to timing. It was a bad choice of words.

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

So basically, you are saying that you decided the pitch before it was through the zone. If you ignore F2 (as you stated), then you are deciding the call well before the ball crosses the plate and that is a fact. I've trained enough rookies to know that what you are doing is using tunnel vision and deciding the call before it happens. I can also guarantee you that you do not see very many breaking balls (good ones) because these have to be tracked all the way to the glove in order to decide what they are.

So you can discount John McSherry if you wish but I will tell you this, he was a fantastic man at the plate and a great teacher. His videos are still used by many instructors to teach rookies how to use everything at their disposal to make a proper decision on a pitch. I doubt very much if you could ever attain anything close to what John did.

Damn, again I let the BS at the LLWS and a total moron get me going.

Ozzy-

As said above, I was not discounting McSherry, I was being sarcastic. I have seen some clips of his videos and I would never discount them by any stretch of the imagination. I was trying to point that I don't let what the catcher does after he catches the pitch effect whether it's a ball or strike (ie. if the catcher muffs the catch, it's a ball or if he frames the pitch it could become a ball or strike).

The rest of your post was a given hopefully with the above comment taken into account.

.......

Did I miss any other comment I should address? Let me know gentleman

-Josh

[UmpJM]

Josh,

Originally Posted by jdmara

I don't care where the catcher catches the pitch. I've seen what I need to see before then. ...

No, you have not.

I just use him catching the ball as a timing mechanism. ...

-Josh

You do not understand what "timing" is, and I assure you there is no "mechanism".

JM

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Josh,

Originally Posted by jdmara
I don't care where the catcher catches the pitch. I've seen what I need to see before then. ...

No, you have not.


JM

Wow. Did someone move the strike zone away from over the plate and not tell us?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Wow. Did someone move the strike zone away from over the plate and not tell us?

Rich,

Not that I'm aware of. Why do you ask? I certainly didn't suggest any such thing.

My comment was in reference to the proper way to track a pitch and proper timing in calling a pitch.

Of course, since you're a coach, I wouldn't expect you to understand any of that.

Josh, on the other hand, suggests that he is an umpire. He needs to understand the proper way to call pitches if he hopes to be any good at it. And, based on his post, he does not understand.

JM

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Rich,

Not that I'm aware of. Why do you ask? I certainly didn't suggest any such thing.

My comment was in reference to the proper way to track a pitch and proper timing in calling a pitch.

Of course, since you're a coach, I wouldn't expect you to understand any of that.

Josh, on the other hand, suggests that he is an umpire. He needs to understand the proper way to call pitches if he hopes to be any good at it. And, based on his post, he does not understand.

JM

Nonsense. You track a pitch through the zone. You don't have to see it or follow it after that ... kind of what Josh said. And he said he used the slap of the mitt as a timing mechanism. That isn't mine, but what's wrong with doing that?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Nonsense. You track a pitch through the zone. You don't have to see it or follow it after that ... kind of what Josh said. And he said he used the slap of the mitt as a timing mechanism. That isn't mine, but what's wrong with doing that?

Where the catcher catches the ball is evidence of the path of the pitch. Why not consider all the evidence? Maybe you thought the pitch missed the zone, but the catcher caught it waist high over the middle of the plate. If you don't consider that evidence, you will call that pitch a ball (erroneously).

Timing is proper use of the eyes, period. Waiting for the slap of the mitt, counting, and other such "mechanisms" may serve to delay the call, but they have nothing to do with timing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Where the catcher catches the ball is evidence of the path of the pitch. Why not consider all the evidence? Maybe you thought the pitch missed the zone, but the catcher caught it waist high over the middle of the plate. If you don't consider that evidence, you will call that pitch a ball (erroneously).

What? If the pitch missed the zone, and the catcher catches it waist high over the middle of the plate, it was a ball. Where it is caught is completely irrelevant. Just like Davidson's fair ball last week - what happens AFTERward doesn't tell you anything about what happened before.

Timing is proper use of the eyes, period. Waiting for the slap of the mitt, counting, and other such "mechanisms" may serve to delay the call, but they have nothing to do with timing.

Again... what? Timing is timing. Proper use of the eyes is crucial, but has nothing to do with timing. I don't use the slap of the mitt ... but so often the cause of missing pitches is calling them to quickly. ANY mechanism that makes you wait gives you that split second to confirm that your mouth is about to say what your eyes saw.

[UmpJM]

mbcrowder,

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Huh? Do you know this Josh guy?

Only from his posts on this board.

Where did that come from?

It came from the misinformation he posted and the personal instruction I have received from...

Jim Evans
Dick Nelson
Fran Burke
David Uyl
Derek Crabill
Dan Bellino
John Gelatt
Brad Purdom
Shaun Francis
Dave Buck
Mike Conlin
Sal Giacomantonio

among others.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Nonsense. You track a pitch through the zone. You don't have to see it or follow it after that ... kind of what Josh said.

Nonsense. Where'd that come from? Your innate knowledge of umpiring?

In my experience, most umpires who espouse this type of nonsense actually are "tunnelling" and lose sight of the pitch 5-10' in front of the plate.

And he said he used the slap of the mitt as a timing mechanism. That isn't mine, but what's wrong with doing that?

Because it is an artificial pausing mechanism and has NOTHING to do with proper timing.

Proper timing is simply waiting to allow your senses to gather and deliver ALL the available information to your brain before starting to make a decision on a call.

JM

[Mrumpiresir]

It is difficult to determine the height of a big curve ball as it crosses the plate. If you see the pitch all the way to the catchers glove you will have a good idea of where the pitch was.

Everyone will agree that a straight fast ball must be caught just below the knee. but a curve ball, on the way down during its trajectory could be caught maybe 6 inches lower and still catch the front of the strike zone.

Newer umpires tend to call low strikes because they don't see where the ball was caught.

The straight fast ball at the belt is a strike but the high curve ball must be caught considerably lower.

Bottom line, in my opinion, it is essential to see the catcher catch the pitch so you can determine the true trajectory of the pitch. I believe this will make you much more consistent. It works for me.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Sal Giacomantonio

Man there's a name I haven't seen in a long time!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Josh,



No, you have not.



You do not understand what "timing" is, and I assure you there is no "mechanism".

JM

Huh? Do you know this Josh guy? Where did that come from?