Perception or Reality

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

That's some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. You must go through quite a bit of hand sanitizer from picking up the ****ty end of the stick all of the time.

There are times when the accepted call is the correct call ie. neighborhood play, strike zone. An experienced umpire knows this. I would have thought you would have known this as well.

Unless there are 42 different cameras with different angles, you should make the call that is obvious to everyone, even the grandmother whos grandson just got called out.

Being a credible umpire is more than calling balls/strikes, outs/safes.

You're living in the wrong time period. "Expected" has been shot and is writhing in its death throes.

And your next to last sentence is incredible - call it the "expected" way unless there is going to be proof of the correct way? Lie unless someone can prove you're lying? I guess you failed your ethics class - or forgot its lessons.

[TussAgee11]

Umpiring is more than just spotting. Its learning to deal with variables that are always changing to get as much information as possible to get the call right. Knowing what should have happened or probably happened or expected to happen can prove useful to an experienced umpire at the right time when he realizes the limitations his position or responsibilities are placing on him.

At the lower levels, call what you see so you realize you have the balls to do this job.

When you move up, realize that at times you just have to go with the expected call because you realize your eyes may have just lied to you because of your position, the play development, etc.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You're living in the wrong time period. "Expected" has been shot and is writhing in its death throes.

And your next to last sentence is incredible - call it the "expected" way unless there is going to be proof of the correct way? Lie unless someone can prove you're lying? I guess you failed your ethics class - or forgot its lessons.

You can choose to believe whatever you think, however, in big boy ball, the "right" call is not necessarily the "correct" call. Perception is reality whether you like it or not. If everyone percieves you missed the call, then you missed the call period. You know it's true. Call the curve that hits the hollow of the knee and bounces in the dirt or call R1 safe at second when F6 catches the ball after the touch and see how long your services will be needed. Same is true when the fielder has ball in glove parked in front of the bag waiting on runner to arrive. If the runner slides directly into the base he is out no matter if the tag is applied or not. If you call the runner safe when the tag is missed by two inches, EVERYONE will know you missed it and you will lose all current and future credibility.

Sometimes you have to take off your training wheels, put on your big boy pants and become an actual umpire.

[dfwump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Many of us did. It is a no brainer, if you are umpiring to avoid controversy then call him as others expect and do it from a LazyBoy in the stands. If you know a runner is safe and you call him out simply because he should have been (under other circumstances) then you are doing a disservice to the profession. Contemporary umpiring maintains a desire to get the call right even of it looks bad from afar.

Mike ,

Oh please tell me what makes you the expert on "contemporary umpiring". What does that even mean? I think I missed that topic at my last clinic.

Mike C.

[UmpTTS43]

I love the smell of rightousness and arrogance on an off day.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I love the smell of rightousness and arrogance on an off day.

The expected lecture was received on an unexpected thread.

[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.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by 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.

My sentiments exactly. Sometimes ya just gotta umpire.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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.

Look, you asked for an honest answer, and I gave you one. I call my strike zone the same way I have for 26 years now, and it hasn't changed a smidgen, despite all the high strike crap that has been pushed down our throats. Sure, it gets slightly expanded a little for 18A or 18 Rookie type leagues, where most of the players haven't picked up a bat since Little League. But at the higher levels, with former big league and college players all over the place, my zone is polished and precisely where I want it called, not where anyone else dictates, assignors included. I have never had any assignor ignorant enough to try to tell me how to call ball. When I quit playing ball in 1985, and started umpiring, it all came very naturally to me, and didn't need outside help.

I very rarely receive any complaints about the zone I call, so it must be okay. I do get occasional complaints about the pitch call, but that is because I missed it, based on MY zone that people get used to in the first inning. If a catcher is trying to fool me into calling a inside pitch by pulling his mitt back to the corner, but forgets to actually catch the ball, no friggin way is he getting a strike. But if the pitch actually nips MY corner, it matters not at all to me if he catches the ball or not. A strike is a strike. If the 12-6 curve (and I've called Zito's back when it was better, and Silva and Harang had pretty good ones back then as well IIRC) doesn't pass through the bottom of MY zone, then it isn't a strike. If the curve is pretty enough, nobody will complain on strike calls just because the catcher doesn't catch them properly. A 12-6 curve that hits the dirt is the catcher's fault. It's his job to make his pitcher look good, not mine.