Banter

[MichaelVA2000]

TC Blue,

My goal on the field is to have as little contact with the coaches and players as possible. I'm there to umpire not to bond.

Is it okay to tell a catcher that she is not framing the pitch well enough to get a strike called on the outside?

I would try adjusting my stance to get a better look. If the catcher is moving her glove trying to sell the pitch, I'll ask her to frame the pitch.

Is it okay to tell a fielder that she had a play until she dropped a ball?

Why would you want to say that? Are you there to coach or umpire?

Is it okay to joke with the the catcher to "take care of you" if you are the plate man?

My conversations with the catcher are using her as messenger to her teammates and coaches. If the catcher makes a good block or takes a foul ball off herself I'll usually say "Nice block".

Is it okay to ask a player how their season is going assuming you have met them in a previous game?

Why is that information important to you? I am civil to the players but try never to initiate frivolous conversation.

Is it okay to chew the fat with the first base coach as the defense warms up?

Once again I ask why. This coach that you've been bonding with could turn on you in a heartbeat if s/he believes you blew a call. Remain civil and postion yourself in the correct between inning position.

[mcrowder]

I ask again - why would ANYONE want/need/ask the catcher to frame the ball? It's WAY past the plate at this point, and if you need a clue from the catcher, you're standing in the wrong place. If you EVER alter a call based on whether catcher frames it well, you're not doing your job.

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I ask again - why would ANYONE want/need/ask the catcher to frame the ball? It's WAY past the plate at this point, and if you need a clue from the catcher, you're standing in the wrong place. If you EVER alter a call based on whether catcher frames it well, you're not doing your job.

When I suggest that a catcher frame a pitch it's letting the catcher know to keep the glove still. (I've already decided my ball/strike call as the ball came through the zone.)

[baldgriff]

Originally Posted by MichaelVA2000

When I suggest that a catcher frame a pitch it's letting the catcher know to keep the glove still. (I've already decided my ball/strike call as the ball came through the zone.)

So then why do they need to keep the glove still again? If not your benefit then whose?

Just curious. I dont do FP. But it seems if you are telling a C to frame the pitch better, then they may delay to make a play on a SB attempt when the pitch is a close one with 2 strikes. They may also have the idea that if they do it the way that you want it they will gain some calls. It may be best to take that one out of the banter repetiore

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by MichaelVA2000

When I suggest that a catcher frame a pitch it's letting the catcher know to keep the glove still. (I've already decided my ball/strike call as the ball came through the zone.)

Still not getting a "why" out of this.

Why are you letting a catcher know to keep the glove still? You don't (well... shouldn't) care. And as they get older, this behavior can be reacted to negatively by some umpires, as it is taken as showing up the umpire. Not to mention that you should not be coaching the players anyway... what if something else happens and their following of your directions to frame the pitch costs them a possible out somewhere?

[SF]

I don't tell catchers to frame a pitch. To me, it seems like instructing the players. I think there are exceptions, though. For example, there was a situation this past season where the catcher would catch outside pitches and attempt to "pull" them into the strike zone. I informed her quietly that action was not going to change my call from "ball" to "strike" on an outside pitch. After she stopped fooling around with the glove (which was getting her coaches all worked) we had a nice game. I considered that comment to be well worth it and not out of bounds.

I'm not going to go out of my way to start conversations with players or coaches, but I will certainly be polite. Between league play and tournaments I see many teams many times over the season, and in those situations it is hard to avoid a couple sentences of friendly conversation.

[mcrowder]

SF - I have no problem with such a comment, and it makes sense to do so, especially when catcher's actions are simply making things worse.

Your comment is, of course, the exact opposite of what Michael is saying and I am disagreeing with, and thus makes a helluva lot of sense.

[JFA67]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I ask again - why would ANYONE want/need/ask the catcher to frame the ball? It's WAY past the plate at this point, and if you need a clue from the catcher, you're standing in the wrong place. If you EVER alter a call based on whether catcher frames it well, you're not doing your job.

Amen!

Wait until you see a pitcher with a good curve, or a change up that drops off a table. These pitches really can't be framed well. Gotta call 'em where they pass through the zone.

[SF]

mcrowder: I was just thinking perhaps thats what Michael means... it was the situation that came to mind where I can see making a comment like that to the catcher.

Oh, and always good when someone thinks I make sense

[tcblue13]

Since I started the thread, let me explain what brought it to mind.
One of our senior Umps in clinic said that he never gives a strike to a pitcher when F2 turns the mitt and allows the ball to bring her hand around her right knee (outside pitch to RH batter). But, he will tell the catch that if she wants that pitch she should frame it by not letting the ball carry her hand around.

The same is true on the low pitch. If F2 turns the mitt over, it is a ball low but if F2 catches it with the mitt upright it will more likely be called a strike.

My thinking as soon as it was said, was "what about the strike zone?"
But this ump has done a ton of ball including state playoffs and NCAA and is very well respected.

I don't think the catcher matters except to give F1 the target. I have called a number of passed balls strikes.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

Since I started the thread, let me explain what brought it to mind.
One of our senior Umps in clinic said that he never gives a strike to a pitcher when F2 turns the mitt and allows the ball to bring her hand around her right knee (outside pitch to RH batter). But, he will tell the catch that if she wants that pitch she should frame it by not letting the ball carry her hand around.

The same is true on the low pitch. If F2 turns the mitt over, it is a ball low but if F2 catches it with the mitt upright it will more likely be called a strike.

My thinking as soon as it was said, was "what about the strike zone?"
But this ump has done a ton of ball including state playoffs and NCAA and is very well respected.

I don't think the catcher matters except to give F1 the target. I have called a number of passed balls strikes.

The real trick with umpiring, especially with calling balls and strikes, is consistency. We all know this. Those are obviously his tools for being consistent. If they work, why question them?

I have heard others say similar things, even attended a clinic once where the clinician said that if you see the catcher turn her glove to catch the pitch, you should probably call that pitch a ball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Consistency is important; but so is believability. No one in top level ball believes a pitch that the catcher cannot handle effectively is a strike, and you will get more grief and loss of respect if you call that pitch a strike, even if it is.

If the pitcher misses the outside corner target back to the inside corner (roughly a 20" miss), and the catcher has to dive to make the adjustment, you are a sitting duck if you call that pitch a strike. No one believes it is; even the team whom you gave the benefit of the correct call. The other calls based on the movement of the catcher's glove are an extension of that philosophy.