Catching Ettiquette
 

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.

A catcher pulling a pitch tells me he thinks it wasn't a strike. I will tell the catcher as much. I don't take offense to it but I don't reward it either.

Around here varsity catchers don't move the mitt much. If I find one doing it, I'll tell him to hold the mitt nice and still so I can get the strike: "when you pull it, that tells everyone you thought it was a ball, and I'm likely to agree with you."

I don't find it disrespectful at all. Ignorant, yes.

He's just badly coached, that's all. Actually, he's helping me out. If he's gotta move the glove after he catches it, it's a ball. It's that simple.

If it's just a kid at the local level, I'll school him as I'm cleaning the plate. Otherwise they'll have to just figure it out themselves.

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?

For me, pulling pitches never results in a ball being called a strike but can result in a strike being called a ball. Please tell your catchers: If you think it's a strike, stick the thing and give me a good look at it. I want it to be a strike too. If you think it's a ball, throw it back to the pitcher. Be honest.

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

-Josh

Pretty much agree with what was already said. One thing that I do view as disrespectful is catchers who hold pitches and say they do it just to make sure you have a good view of it. You know damn well I saw that pitch and it was too far in. Catch the ball, throw the ball back.

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.

Josh,

No, you have not.

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

JM

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

Same here.

First off I hate the word "Framing". Most people equate framing with some movement. I teach catcher's as well and will use the word "Displaying".

Catcher's who frame I often view as begging for strikes. Those who display where the pitch was will usually be able to get me more strikes.

I was told that framing a pitch is an art, requiring a catcher to learn to "twist" his glove to catch the ball, apparently by tucking the elbow into the body. This keeps the glove in the same relative place, but extends the fingers outward, making it appear the glove was never moved.

I don't know if this is true or not, as I was never a catcher. This was told to me by a trainer in our organization.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, I do appreciate them.

Tiger - I agree that framing has gotten a bad rep. I refer to it as receiving and that encompasses everything that keeps a strike a strike (e.g., not letting the glove move after catching, wrapping the ball, etc.).

Yawetag - I'm not sure about a twist, but I instruct catchers to catch the outer half (for pitches on the corners) or upper half (for pitches up/over the middle) of the ball. It involves wrapping the glove around that half of the ball (plus keeping the elbow tucked, receiving not reaching for the ball, etc.).

Framing and pulling are two different things. A catcher who can frame properly is an umpire's best friend. A catcher who pulls is setting everyone up for a long day.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I completely respect your opinion on here, Ozzy, and normally agree with you. However, it is EXACTLY on breaking balls that we should not let the location of the catcher when he catches it sway our thinking. Not watching the glove doesn't mean we are necessarily using tunnel vision. I do stress with younger umps that they MUST watch the pitch ALL THE WAY through the zone - not just at the front, and definitely not just when it's way out front before the plate as some want to do.

Proper timing will allow you to absorb what you saw without calling what you THOUGHT you were going to see when the pitch hadn't even arrived yet.

Now that I've said that - one caveat. I can count the guys I've umpired that throw in the 90's on 1 finger (and in the interest of full disclosure, my zone was probably not at its best that game - to work at that speed consistently, I admit needing a lot more exposure to that speed); and 80's on both hands. McSherry dealt with 90's and the occasional 100. I will fully admit that at those speeds, the location of the glove might have some informatino for you. And at those speeds, the time that the ball is between plate and glove is REALLY miniscule.

But at 70's and low 80's, I think there's a bigger danger in missing pitches if you DO watch it past the back of the plate. Both erroneous strikes and erroneous balls.

Easy now Ozzy.

The old "call the ball, not the situation" is classic sophomore year umpire stuff. He'll learn. (hopefully)

p.s. I've had to be unscrewed out of the ceiling over this LL nonsense. It's hit way too close home for me this year.

Try 80mph from 46 feet. That ball gets on you quicker than a blink. Faster than MLB stuff. I've seen it twice. The catcher plays a HUGE roll, but yes, you've got to be ready for off-speed stuff. It ain't easy out there.

It absolutely means you are using tunnel vision.

In order to be proficient as a plate umpire, you have to track the ball all the way to the mitt. YOU HAVE TO TRACK THE BALL ALL THE WAY TO THE MITT. Did I mention that YOU HAVE TO TRACK THE BALL ALL THE WAY TO THE MITT?

That is why, YOU HAVE TO TRACK THE BALL ALL THE WAY TO THE MITT.


EEK. I'm not going to say it.

More pitches are missed due to not tracking the ball completely than by just watching it through the zone.

Done that with the larger ball. And I agree. I find that release point easier to call, actually.

mbcrowder,

Only from his posts on this board.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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*

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.

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

Very well put, I agree totally!

Thanks
David

The basics I have always followed is to watch the ball into the mit. Lower level ball, it is probably better to concentrate more on the location than the total picture because of the inexperience of the catcher and because your probablby using a bigger stike zone for that level.

Higher level, VHS and above your using all the tools to get as much information as possible to get a solid consistent zone. And whether you want to believe it or not the benches get some indication of the pitch from how it is caught. A catcher straight up center on the plate usually, can't catch a fastball just below the knee for a strike , without turning his glove over. Is it a strike? Maybe? It probably doesn't look that way though. Up in front of his mask is probably a ball, along with any thing outside his shoulder width.

Not hard fast one's but, little tools or indicators I have used to help me stay consistent. Catcher sets up inside and pitcher throws outside corner. Ball or Strike? A duce catches the front part of the plate/corner and is caught outside. Ball or strike?

You decide but, for sure, if your truly calling what only crosses the plate and passes through the straightup stike zone, I suggest that at more advanced levels of ball, you may consider more tools to help make your decision or your in for some long and noisy games. JMO

I have done that with the larger ball, and I agree that the release point helps there. More recently, I had a kid purported to be throwing 80-82, from 50 feet. The release point (kid was about 6 feet) and the distance to the plate make it probably more difficult at the low end of the zone than anything thrown from 60'6" in the high 80's to mid 90's.

agreed
 

agreed 100%.......my thoughts exactly

Dear Mr. Muller,

You have been waxing dyspeptic of late - everything okay? :)

On topic, I was always taught to track the ball, using the eyes only, from release to the catcher's mitt.

To the point raised, I do precisely as mbyron does. If he's pulling it, I tell him he's costing his pitcher strikes. Simple. Season to taste for the level of ball.

Oops, double-tap.