Perception or Reality

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The strike zone is the one exception that allows an umpire to ignore the low strike - it has been discussed ad nauseum.

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

So why do we get to ignore not only the low strike, but the high strike as well?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The other calls, neighborhood plays particularly, are routinely challenged by excellent umpires. It is refreshing to see the best professional and collegiate umpires not ignoring them any more. This past CWS had quite a few plays that were called as they are supposed to, not as fans think they should be.

IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

[BigUmp56]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782210]

IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

Well said! I'm all for getting the call right, but there are excepted traditions in this game that are being changed based on what the average FAN wants to see. The changes in philosophy are not based on what baseball people want. If you were to poll 100 professional and 100 collegiate baseball players about the phantom DP, I would guess you'd find the vast majority of them are in favor of having it called the way it has been for years. They want to get out of the game with two primary goals acheived. They want a victory for their team, and they want to leave the field un-injured. Requiring a fielder to receive the ball right on top of the bag with a hard sliding runner bearing down on him is counter intuitive to one of those goals. The same can be said on a tag play where the ball beats the runner. There's no reason to require a fielder to leave his hand and arm exposed to being spiked while waiting for a runner to slide right into it.


Tim.

[MikeStrybel]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782210]

IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

You missed many of my posts regarding this subject. In almost every one, I have noted that television coverage is responsible for making umpires more accountable for their calls. We saw a similar change occur in umpire demeanor. It used to be acceptable for umpires to say what they felt out there, that is not the case any longer.

I have been at this for a while too, Pete. I don't speak of my experience or brag of past accomplishments. Along the way, I saw umpires who emulated the big boys and made phantom calls, MF'd those who questioned them and mailed it in when they didn't care. Thankfully, some did care and the way we are expected to officiate has evolved. If you truly believe that making the wrong call (per the rules, not what brought you less criticism) didn't create an advantage then, IMO, you are mistaken. Calls don't even out. Some umpires like to think so, but it's rarely the case.

Your statement about the expected call arriving from a player's need to avoid injury is off. Lazy/cheating players and umpires caused it to happen. When they found it wouldn't be questioned, the die was cast. Thankfully, umpire mechanics, pride and instant replay recast it.

I worked with a guy who used to say, don't polish your shoes (when he saw me shining them up), this level of ball doesn't deserve it. He would limit his hustle and reply that it was expected. I always wondered, by whom? I maintain that if the throw beats the player, the glove is on the ground in front of the base and the runner adjusts to beat it, the runner is safe. I have no problem telling a defensive coach why the guy was safe. My assignors concur.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=MikeStrybel;782373]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If you truly believe that making the wrong call (per the rules, not what brought you less criticism) didn't create an advantage then, IMO, you are mistaken. Calls don't even out. Some umpires like to think so, but it's rarely the case.

I am not trying to change your opinion but from your responses you really do not KNOW or truly understand the definitions of the neighborhood / phantom tag / expected call theories.

They are NOT make up calls which you seem to imply.

There were excellent articles written by some of the most well reknown umpires on the subject matter. One who comes to mind was Jon Bible who used to be a frequent poster at umpire.org.

We are NOT talking about a lazy tag etc. etc.

FWIW here is the definition of the neighborhood play.

R1 - 1 out.

Ground ball RIGHT AT F6 to start the traditional 6-4-3 DP. The ball is in PLENTY of time to get R1. "back in the day" as long as F4 was in the NEAR vicinity of the bag = OUT. No need for him to hold the bag upon the sliding R1especially if you are playing by PRO rules which for all practcial purposes has no sliding restrictions like FED / NCAA.

It was that way for YEARS not just my experiences. According to you all those PRO umpires who used to call the neighborhood are no good, cheating etc.

If the throw is off or a player is lazy is a COMPLETE different story and IMO that's not what happened in the OP or at least the way I interpret it. His glove was where it should be in plenty of time to get the runner.

Like I said just because things change doesn't necessarily translate into a better game. Yes it's the "new breed" and if I was fortunate enough to be umpiring at those levels then yes I would do as the Romans but I am not.

Pete Booth

[Rich]

You know, all this talk of the neighborhood play has gotten to be quite boring.

Here's the truth, distilled into fewer than 1000 words: It's dead. Buried. Fielders at all levels are getting the bag. The really good players make it look like they're not on the bag. But with a trained umpire's eye, you can see them hold the bag for a split second.

I don't bother even thinking about the neighborhood anymore. Either the ball is with the fielder while he's in contact with the bag or it isn't. How can a coach argue with you when you tell him the fielder wasn't on the bag? That they "always get that call?" How can a coach, umpire, or assignor possibly defend that in this day and age?

I call the pivot the same at all levels from little kids up through small college and adult ball. It's easier. I don't have to make stuff up.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You know, all this talk of the neighborhood play has gotten to be quite boring.

Here's the truth, distilled into fewer than 1000 words: It's dead. Buried. Fielders at all levels are getting the bag. The really good players make it look like they're not on the bag. But with a trained umpire's eye, you can see them hold the bag for a split second.

I don't bother even thinking about the neighborhood anymore. Either the ball is with the fielder while he's in contact with the bag or it isn't. How can a coach argue with you when you tell him the fielder wasn't on the bag? That they "always get that call?" How can a coach, umpire, or assignor possibly defend that in this day and age?

I call the pivot the same at all levels from little kids up through small college and adult ball. It's easier. I don't have to make stuff up.

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.