Perception or Reality

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Because if I call those pitches strikes, the number of quality assignments I receive from my assignor will plummet.

I am in total agreement with you on that. If we are to buy the whole "get the call right" philosophy, why are assignors dinging umpires for calling "legitamate" strikes?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I am in total agreement with you on that. If we are to buy the whole "get the call right" philosophy, why are assignors dinging umpires for calling "legitamate" strikes?

Just as the EXPECTED call wasn't made on EVERY call before, the "RIGHT" call isn't made on EVERY call now.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I guess I missed that discussion. So why do we get to ignore not only the low strike, but the high strike as well? You seem to be a well versed umpire, so I anticipate your answer.

The ball that nips the zone and finishes in or just above the dirt is a problem for umpires, especially those judged by QwesTec and multiple camera angles. Amateurs pick up their habits and it becomes customary to not see those pitches as strikes. It is still considered acceptable to ignore those strikes, unless they are marquee pitchers hurling them. Josh Beckett, Justin Verlander and Barry Zito all have been given the benefit of those calls for their incredible 12-6 dueces. Kerry Wood used to have a devastating 12-6 and got many of those calls.

Coaches claim that they want a big zone but not that call...wait, only when they are at bat. Many pitching coaches whine about shrinking strike zones and demand that the true zone be called. Do you call strikes when the catcher drops the pitch? Soft gloves it?

I am fortunate to have assignors that appreciate those of us who call strikes. My games have never suffered because of my desire to follow the rules. Conversely, I know a few guys who have lost assignments because they refuse to call anything above the waist or at the knees. If you have been told to ignore the high strike by your assignor, do what you need to do.

I find it pretty funny that some of you continue to think the 'get the call right' or abandonment of the 'expected call' philosophies are my folly. While I am a supporter of these changes and a fan of the evolution of umpiring, I am only reporting what is being done out there. The past CWS was a case study in how umpires are expected to work. The scrutiny being given to televised baseball is growing and efforts to improve umpiring even more so. Calling someone out, even though you know they aren't, is not progress.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I am in total agreement with you on that. If we are to buy the whole "get the call right" philosophy, why are assignors dinging umpires for calling "legitamate" strikes?

NOBODY, is 100% pure on "getting it right" and darn few are 100% on making "the expected call."

We all work the best we can to do the best job as we have been trained and as we have grown to understand. There are still ML umpires who will give the original version of the neighborhood play. You can see it in highlights and replays. There are still Super Regional an CWS umpires who, in the bar late at night, will tell you exactly when they make the "expected call" and when they don't.

It's been obvious for several years that the instances of professional umpires and upper level D-1 umpires "getting it right" has increased greatly. As time goes it on, "making the expected" call will be so narrowly defined as to barely exist. In the meantime, we all make our calls and own our calls and deal with the consequences that come with both making the expected call and getting it right.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

NOBODY, is 100% pure on "getting it right" and darn few are 100% on making "the expected call."

We all work the best we can to do the best job as we have been trained and as we have grown to understand. There are still ML umpires who will give the original version of the neighborhood play. You can see it in highlights and replays. There are still Super Regional an CWS umpires who, in the bar late at night, will tell you exactly when they make the "expected call" and when they don't.

It's been obvious for several years that the instances of professional umpires and upper level D-1 umpires "getting it right" has increased greatly. As time goes it on, "making the expected" call will be so narrowly defined as to barely exist. In the meantime, we all make our calls and own our calls and deal with the consequences that come with both making the expected call and getting it right.

It's nice to see you agree with me, finally. Umpiring is evolving. Rookies spend big bucks and plenty of time training while trying to look like the pros. Amateur ball is seeing the benefits of this and most embrace it.

I don't think I am better than those who disagree with my opinions here. I find it humorous that I get PMs with "resumes" from anonymous members here who think they are. In the end, do what your assignor or pay check issuer wants of you. I am blessed to work with guys and for assignors who want me to officiate with integrity and effort. It's time for my son's football practice now, so you guys can have at it.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I am in total agreement with you on that. If we are to buy the whole "get the call right" philosophy, why are assignors dinging umpires for calling "legitamate" strikes?

Depends on what you mean by legitimate. I go by what my assignor considers legitimate. According to him, a 12-6er that nicks the zone but finishes in the dirt is not a legitimate strike. A belt-high fastball that the catcher sticks 2" off the plate is a legitimate strike.

My assignor assigns games for about 40 college conferences, plus the Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League and the Cape Cod Baseball League, among others. I do what he wants me to do.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Depends on what you mean by legitimate. I go by what my assignor considers legitimate. According to him, a 12-6er that nicks the zone but finishes in the dirt is not a legitimate strike. A belt-high fastball that the catcher sticks 2" off the plate is a legitimate strike.

My assignor assigns games for about 40 college conferences, plus the Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League and the Cape Cod Baseball League, among others. I do what he wants me to do.

Oh great, so you do what your assignor wants you to do, even if it is in conflict with the official rules (because by rule he is dead wrong on the two examples you give - and you know it). As a matter of principle, where do you draw the line? If he decides that the zone should be nose to toes is that what you give him?

Hey, I understand the need to be responsive to the way others may perceive your calls and to adjust those calls accordingly. It's a matter of game management and the art of umpiring. Glad to see you agree.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Oh great, so you do what your assignor wants you to do, even if it is in conflict with the official rules (because by rule he is dead wrong on the two examples you give - and you know it).

Now you're getting it.

As a matter of principle, where do you draw the line?

No need to draw a line.

If he decides that the zone should be nose to toes is that what you give him?

Zero chance of that happening. Keep it real bro.

[biggravy]

OP this is actually a great philosophical question. This should be a great discussion and teaching point at a new umpire clinic. The reason you are getting so much hostility is similar scenarios have been posted here at least a hundred times and no one is changing sides no matter how the story is tweaked.

[UmpTTS43]

I appreciate the replies and do have an understanding on the topic at hand. My point is that in most amateur ball, there are not the HD camera angles that can parse the play down to the mm. My other point is that there is a hypocracy concerning the "get it right" philosophy. Strike zone v neighborhood play v original op. I also realize that this philosophy is different from level to level. Outside of MLB, in pro ball there are still the expected calls and if they are not made, you can lose credibility with the teams and the evaluators. If MLB did not have the cameras they do now, there would still be the expected call. The improvement within technology has been the biggest reason for the "get it right" mantra.

I appreciate the discussion.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

My point is that in most amateur ball, there are not the HD camera angles that can parse the play down to the mm.

HD or not, 40-60% of my games are televised, with replay. I get to see what I did and did not do, and what the unwashed masses think. (Hint--once they see replay, they see it my way, assuming I got it right.)

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

My other point is that there is a hypocracy concerning the "get it right" philosophy. Strike zone v neighborhood play v original op..

This is not hypocrisy. The rulebook makes a distinction between these types of calls, hence the particular attention paid to the arguing of balls and strikes.

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I also realize that this philosophy is different from level to level. Outside of MLB, in pro ball there are still the expected calls and if they are not made, you can lose credibility with the teams and the evaluators.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

If MLB did not have the cameras they do now, there would still be the expected call.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his *** when he hopped. Reality is reality.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Matt

This is not hypocrisy. The rulebook makes a distinction between these types of calls, hence the particular attention paid to the arguing of balls and strikes.

Again you miss the point. It also states in the rules that you cannot argue judgment calls yet we, as umpires, allow it to a point.

You call the expected strike zone not the rule book zone and that is accepted yet there are times when the expected call should apply to the bases but suddenly everyone gets in a tizzy and calls it taboo. I hear "screw the team that screws up" mantra on here as well. Again, usually that's not getting the call "right". I guess what you are saying is that it is ok to follow most of the rules but assignors can dictate which ones to bend. There are expected calls that contradict the rule book in all sports. Like it or not it is part of the game and there are times when it is appropriate.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by dfwump

Guys please re-read this carefully, put yourself in the situation as described and tell me truthfully, honestly, what would be your call. I have clearly stated what mine would be. And IMHO its a no-brainer.

Mike C

Truthfully, honestly...SAFE, NO TAG!

I have never given a coach's arse what anyone thought of my call. I'm an umpire, not the beer salesman.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Truthfully, honestly...SAFE, NO TAG!

I have never given a coach's arse what anyone thought of my call. I'm an umpire, not the beer salesman.

Do you make calls as you want, or, as others here do, as your assignor wants?

I take it you always call the 12-6 in the dirt that crosses the zone a strike? The inside pitch that nicks the corner but the catcher misses - you've got a strike? The crossed-up pitch that hits the outside corner but the catcher lunges for? All strikes? If so, good for you. If not, you obviously do care what someone else thinks; and make sure you keep the beers cold - you'll sell more that way.

[jkumpire]

Well,

Last night I was watching the Indians and White Sox in Chicago, and Carmona was throwing nasty stuff. Everything moved around faster than a PGA Tour player on a golf cart.

I am sure this did not get on MLB.com, but Carmona threw a pitch to Konerko that moved so much Lou Marson (I think who was the F2) who was set up outside he reached inside to catch it. Well, the pitch was just off the middle of the plate, it wasn't close to inside, and our PU rang up the strike.

Now Konerko saw where Marson's glove was, as opposed to where Marson was, and stood int he box and raised cain about the pitch. The Play-by-play man and color guy talked about how Knoerko handled it with class, and didn't show up the umpire, but complained for a long time about the pitch.

There was no false zone posted on the screen, and I wish there would have been, because it was a clear strike and should have been called. But the pitch made Marson look bad and if was borderline, it's a ball. Several CWS umpires did the same thing in Omaha, and nobody said boo.

This is all brought up to say one thing, even in MLB: If it's a clear strike, or the ball beats the fielder, and the close tag/maybe no tag is made, it's an out. It looks like an out and should be called and out.

But there are times where it looks bad, and it's still a strike or an out, and sometimes it looks bad and it isn't an out. That's why they pay good umpires not so good inflated American currency to call games, because they use good judgement on plays like this and know when to make the 'expected call' and when not to.