Pitcher's Umpire

[tcannizzo]

It has occurred to me that I am a Pitcher's Umpire. Not because I set out to do that, but in reviewing my calls, and my own interpretation of the strike zone, I think this is the case.

I give good corners on belt-high pitches (flatten/widen).

I think this is consistent with basic umpire mechanics. For example
> a Strike is usually called with loud emphasis (encouragement for P), while a Ball is even sometimes barely verbalized.
> We are in the business of getting Outs, not generating baserunners.
> I don't understand why one (i.e. Hitter's Umpire) would squeeze the zone, by calling Balls making it easier for Offense and more difficult for Defense.

Curious to hear thoughts about how others perceive themselves, and how they perceive others.

Also subjecting myself to criticism in case this is wrong thinking.

[CecilOne]

If we try to use the defined strike zone, with no intent to favor either pitcher or batter, and we end up with a zone larger or smaller than average, then so be it.
If we are biased toward getting outs or not, that is not valid.
I don't have much difference between the two calls, maybe more emphasis on strike 3, or less on balls ridiculously obvious.

[KJUmp]

....."my own interpretation of the strike zone" curious as to what that is.

[umpirebob71]

I never thought mine was the business of getting outs. I thought that was the business of the defense. I think mine is the business of officiating a game as fairly and equitabley as possible.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Well, I will tell what - we just finished our New Officials Clinic, and I will tell you the very first thing they try to get the new people to understand is the strike zone. Now both of our clinicians are or have have been clinicians at our State School, and are veteran NCAA officials, etc, etc. - just establishing credentials here.

Anyway, they begin by asking how wide the plate is, and of course some of them answer '17 inches' - then they ask -using a ball as a demo - ask how wide is the black, which is two inches on each side. They now say, ok we have 21 inches right? And the move the ball to the side a couple of more inches. Finally they ask 'The ball is 12 inches in diameter, right?' And everybody nods. Then the clinician goes how that if a thread is hanging off that ball over the BLACK - guess what we have? A POTENTIAL 33 inch wide plate - and then he gives how its a little wider in the middle, etc, etc... Remember this is the zone as PRACTICED.


The point is, T, you sound like you have an excellent zone, and I would work with you ANYday.

Myself, I get told by a lot of people - coaches....fellow umps..UICs that I have an excellent and FAIR zone. I know I tend to squeeze a touch on the inside middle, but I make up for outside just a hair. It took me a LONG time to get it, but I am very happy with mine now.

[Andy]

Tony - while I don't agree with your exact wording, I do agree with your philosophy.

The best explanation of the strike zone that I heard was from Emily several years ago - It looks like the Chevrolet bow tie logo. Narrow at the top and bottom, wider in the middle.

One of the other things I have heard and like is that if at all possible, the first pitch of the game is a strike! This tells everybody that you are calling strikes today and get the bats swinging.

I am generally pretty happy with my zone. I try to keep it right within the generally accepted guidelines that we have all been taught. I may miss a pitch or two per game (and I know instantly when I do), but overall I think I'm pretty consitant.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

Finally they ask 'The ball is 12 inches in diameter, right?' And everybody nods.

Did everyone nod NO? The ball is 11" in circumference, not diameter. Which gives you about 3.5" diameter. So the plate is about 29" wide 21 you mentioned + 4" (I'll round up) on each side!

[Bandit]

[QUOTE=ASA/NYSSOBLUE;740847]they begin by asking how wide the plate is, and of course some of them answer '17 inches' - then they ask -using a ball as a demo - ask how wide is the black, which is two inches on each side.

What book has "black" on the plate? I don't recall any softball rule book stating anything about "black"?

The plate is 17" wide. End of description.

Now I understand the extra width of the strike zone. AKA. The entire ball does not have to be over the plate to be considered a strike. But this "black" thing is always a courious item of conversation?

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

....."my own interpretation of the strike zone" curious as to what that is.

In no particular order:
Bottom of ball at Top of Knee
Top of ball at Bottom of Armpit
Any part of ball over plate, but with exceptions:
If you think of the strike zone a telephone keypad
123
456
789
and all numbers are in the "rule book zone"
1,3,7 and 9 are seldom called strikes
These are pitches that might be in the book zone, but can be "too high for an outside strike", or "too low for an inside strike"

To clarify my flatten/widen and the posters use of the chevron, 2 and 8 will be strikes if they are over the middle of the plate.

At belt high, I will go 4-extended and 6-extended, and if I had to spell it out, I will call belt-high channel strikes.

I told you mine, now you tell me yours.

P.S. I should have put a smiley on the comment about being in the business to "get Outs".

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

It has occurred to me that I am a Pitcher's Umpire. Not because I set out to do that, but in reviewing my calls, and my own interpretation of the strike zone, I think this is the case.

I give good corners on belt-high pitches (flatten/widen).

I think this is consistent with basic umpire mechanics. For example
> a Strike is usually called with loud emphasis (encouragement for P), while a Ball is even sometimes barely verbalized.
> We are in the business of getting Outs, not generating baserunners.
> I don't understand why one (i.e. Hitter's Umpire) would squeeze the zone, by calling Balls making it easier for Offense and more difficult for Defense.

Curious to hear thoughts about how others perceive themselves, and how they perceive others.

Also subjecting myself to criticism in case this is wrong thinking.

I consider myself an umpire. Period. I favor neither the offense nor the defense in my actions, at least consciously. I attempt to call the strike zone as it is defined, though of course, I am human and am prone to mistake.

Yes, there is an emphasis on a called strike. That is the nature of the business. However, the ball should be called in a normal, conversational, voice level. Never should it be "barely vocalized," or, as I have seen more than I care to mention, not vocalized at all. Every pitch is something, and it should be clearly noted by the umpire.

You have already recanted your comment about "being in the business to get outs," so I will take it that you did mean that somewhat tongue in cheek. However, there are many people who believe that is our objective, so I do take exception to that statement.

It appears, by your description using the number pad analogy, that you do squeeze the strike zone. 1,3,7,9 are all strikes, and should be called. Beyond the realm of 4 and 6 you have a ball, there is no strike zone "extended," or at least that I have heard of. Rather than extend certain parts of your strike zone, why not work on incorporating all of the strike zone as it is written? I know that I still work, after all these years, on trying to call a book zone, and not give up too much or too little on the bottom end, since that seems to be the hardest to set solidly. If we all focus on trying to enforce all the rules as written, including doing our best to call the strike zone as written, then we establish the balance in the game that we are there to insure. None of this "pro-offense/pro-defense" stuff.