Never Heard This One Before
 

We have all heard the debate about whether a ball that is not caught by the catcher should be called a strike or not but this discussion was new to me. My team's offensive inning ended when the opponent's catcher went to his knees as if to block a pitch and then somehow caught the ball in flight. A very delayed strike three was called. As I was returning to the dugout after coaching third base, the conversation (started by PU) went like this:

PU: Sorry it took so long to call that. I was waiting for a clean catch.
Me: So did the pitch go through the strike zone?
PU: Yes it did.
Me: So, what does a clean catch have to do with it?
PU: We'll, if he didn't catch it, I might not have called it a strike.
Me: If passing through the strike zone didn't make it a strike, what would have determined whether you called it a strike or not?
PU: If the ball gets out of the dirt area, it will be a ball. If it stays in the dirt area, I will call it a strike.
Me (walking away): Wow. I have never seen that in the rule book.
PU: It's in there Coach.

After a discussion like this I decided that it would be in my best interest to not talk to this guy for the rest of the game and hope that he didn't decide to make up any more rules as we went along.

I assume you realize that you were baiting the hell out of PU, right? (And I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing.) Just remember that you're playing with fire on that.

I would agree if he was standing in the dirt area however, if he is outside the dirt area, then inquiring about making up rules is perfectly acceptable.

:):) Its in the book Matt.:):)

And he deserves it, too. He started it by saying, "I was waiting for a clean catch." Why bother making a comment at all? Just call the damn pitch, then go back and take a drink of Gatorade.

Umpire seems to be an idiot.

Coach seems to be a rat.

News at 11.

Sounds like the umpire was trying to apply a high-level-ball rule-of-thumb as an absolute in a low-level game.

So how would you suggest "discussing" a jaw-dropping comment from a game official? :)

What purpose does it serve to do anything? He called it a strike. Walk back to the dugout.

Even the OP isn't saying he thinks the pitch WASN'T in the strike zone, was he?

Wait... the PU started the conversation with "I was waiting for a clean catch"?

:eek:

Why say anything at all? STFU and let the coach start the conversation if there needs to be one.

And, for the record, I don't care one way or the other if F2 catches the pitch. If it's a strike, it's a strike.

How high-level-ball?

the higher the level, the more emphasis is put on the catcher.

sure -- if it's right down the middle and boxed to the ground, it's still a strike.

But if F2 is inside and has to reach all the way to the corner and the ball tips off his glove, -- that's probably going to be a ball (even if it caught the corner) in NCAA and pro ball.

And some umpires won't call that a strike even if the catcher is able to catch it.

It's really a self-preservation kind of thing, if you believe in that, that has gained some acceptance. A pitch won't appear to be in the zone when the catcher can't catch it, or has to reach way over to do so. Many umpires will call it a ball, and will very likely not hear anything from the defense. If they call it a strike, they WILL hear it from the offense.

:( but true. Calling the plate is so not de rigueur