FYC.

[Umpire in Chief]

There was a pretty good thread going at officiating.com about Making a Point and the use of FYC calls.

I don't want to beat the dead horse, but I thought this was a great topic, unfortunately it went to more of a personal attack issue and was appropriately closed.

FYC for those who don't know is the F:censored: You Call.

It is applied often times to either:

1. Make a point
   
2. Take action in lieu of an ejection
   
3. Make the player/coach be the one who looks bad, not the umpire
   

This is a very controversial practice. Some people consider it lying or cheating and others consider it a form of game management.

Here are my thoughts.

First, as I just stated it's not a generally accepted practice and is controversial. If you don't believe in it's use, then don't use it.

Second, the FYC needs to be used even more judiciously than EJs. If you are reaching for this tool too often, there are probably other game management options available and the problem may indeed be on your part. Using FYCs too often earns people labels of reda$$, or worse.

Next, this is truly an "Advanced Mechanic." You as the umpire must be absolutely and completely on top of your game to think off pulling this. If your game has any hint of being irrational or inconsistent, your "message" will be lost.

It is also a technique which can come only from experience and confidence. If you have to ask yourself am I experienced enough to pull this off well, then the answer is no.

Also, because one of the goals of the FYC is to send a message, this is not a passive aggressive technique. Everybody involved needs to have a clue as to what's going on and have this level of awareness. Therefore using it at lower levels of ball is not a good idea. You can not be scheming in your head, 'Well next time he comes up to bat...' The target has to be able to receive the message, or you are creating more problems than you're fixing.

Then, remember when you as umpire get the remedy you were seeking, it's over. History means nothing, and a player who knows what's going on expects that when they've been FYC'd that it all is good again.

The goal of the FYC is not to determine/alter the out come of a game, it's to remedy a situation.

But also, remember if you apply this technique you must be willing to suffer the consequences if it goes wrong.

You may have used a lighter version of the FYC without realizing it. You have either the pitcher/catcher or batter complaining about the strike zone, your not going to give them the benefit of the doubt on the closer pitches. This is a different example because it wasn't apparent to to player who was complaining what was going on, and really doesn't fix anything.

I've deployed this technique only once and it worked for me.

Batter looks at K3 then looks back at me and sarcastically says, "You've got to be kidding." I said nothing and was waiting for the next batter. He stayed in place a second or two staring at me.

The batter slowly walks from his place in the righty box and gets to the other side of the lefty box, turns around and says "Really?" Once again really sarcastically, and continued to stare at me. I looked back at him with out saying a word attempting to send a message. I then went to brush off the plate in an attempt to give him the time he needed to get to the dugout before any issue could be made.

When I stood up I looked over at him still staring at me but he had moved about 5 feet closer to the dugout. I slowly walked over to him and his coach arrived at the player the same time I did. I said to him, "You can stare at me all you want, but when you get back up here, you'd better be swinging."

Next time he came to bat as he's approaching the box I said to the catcher, "Oh, look it's my best friend." with as much sarcasm as I could lay on. Before the batter got in the box the catcher called time ran out to the pitcher really quickly.

The catcher obviously got my clue because the pitcher threw complete junk. And the batter also got my message because he was swinging and fouling them off. He must have looked like a fool swinging at pitches 6' high, a foot outside, etc. With 2 strikes and 3-4 fouls the next pitch was so wide the catcher couldn't get it and it went to the backstop, and the batter did not swing. He looked back to see if I was going to ring him up. I told the catcher, "As much as I want it I cant get that one." After another foul or two he actually hit a pitch which was head high for a single.

When he returned the next time, as he's digging in he looks back and asks, "We're good?" and I just nodded affirmatively.

IMO, this was the perfect FYC situation. And actually was more of the threat of a FYC which did the trick because I never made the FY Call.

Could I have EJ'd him? Yes. But using this he got to play AND he learned his lesson. The only person who looked bad in the situation to someone who didn't know what was going on was the batter. Win win for everyone, and I really didn't have to take any direct action.

Was his strike zone going to be much bigger? Yes.

Was it going to be ridiculous? No, but as big as I could get without me looking bad.

Did I cheat? No. Nor would I ever.

Did it effect the outcome of the game? No.

So let's continue this debate in the great tone you guys have made this site known for.

[mstaylor]

You have more patience than me. When he switched sides, I would have dumped him. It worked out for you but I would have never gotten that far.

Now back to the discussion:

A FYC does have a place in certain games at certain levels of play. It is a tool but one that should be used very, very sparingly. It can be used in adult ball and sometimes in college but never in anything younger than that. The kids don't have the skill level, game awareness and appreciation of subtlety. I am more of a fan of ejection or some other game managment method.

I did use a FUC once in a college game. I called a pitch on the outside corner and the batter objected. He said he thought it was way outside, he reached out with the bat and tapped the ground. I told him he didn't want to do that again. He said it was outside and started to reach with the bat again. I repeated he didn't want to do that again. The next pitch was outside and I called it strike. Next pitch he chopped at a high pitch and grounded out. The catcher told me he figured the guy was gone. I told him usually that would be true but it had been such a good day of baseball I let him stay, but I was sure he got the message. F2 said absolutely.

I can't remember the last time I did it in an adult game but it does have a limited use there.

[ump81]

Guys, ref the FYC, I agree its for adult, college only, although if you saw that HS catcher in Georgia who went down so the ump could take a shot while losing 11-0, I would remember that guy for life and he never gets a call until he retires. I really can't recall using it on purpose though, only place is maybe the adult leagues in the summer. Lots of prima donnas there who sometimes dont get it. I think integrity is the key in any game of real meaning I'm not going to make myself look bad or lose any of my personal integrity for the game, because a player mouths off or worse. In NCAA we have the tool of balls and strikes warnings, once he goes too far I can make a big issue of the warning and anything further he is gone. All can see that I tried to keep him in the game by a warning even that didnt work so he ejected himself. Im reading verbal judo and underlied a great quote today " let them have the last word because we always have the last action". He was talking about an arrest situation in police work, but it applies equally in an ejection by an umpire. It is a part of the game, it is a tool in the bag but one used very sparingly and with great discretion. I agree it is an advanced situational technique and best used at higher levels by an experienced practitioner. Enjoy the 9 week off season! NCAA starts Feb 1 for some of our contract schools.

[MCLEOD36]

I think it is situational. I have always felt big guys or little guys, we must be arbitors of the game and have a higher honor, thus a FUC is not in my repetoire. However, a quick comment or two to a coach or player usually diffuses things quickly. I like using terms like the pitch is not even on the black, most get it, if they dont I just say way outside. It is like catchers, I have learned over the years they are usually the smartest bunch and talking to them helps, they can do well to control a game or a situation. I have rarely ejected coaches, unless they are making a mockery of the game. THat is my two cents.

[mstaylor]

I can see why a FYC isn't in your arsenal, I haven't used it in a long time. However, I would seriously reconsider the only toss for making a mockery of the game policy. It sounds like you are taking too much crap you shouldn't take. There are plenty of reasons to toss a coach besides making a mockery. You don't have to be a reda$$ but there is something between not at all and tossing everyone in sight.

[LMSANS]

FYC is definitely not in my arsenal. The greatest thing I bring to any aspect of my life is my integrity. I am not going to lower my standards because of some ball player. If he takes actions that would qualify for FYC, then he probably deserves an ejection.

I call a pitch or a play the way I see it. I may not always be right for any number of reasons (timing, position, etc.), but my integrity is not one of them.

[Umpire in Chief]

I received this PM this morning from a member and wanted to share it:

Warren, I have a bit of an issue with your post on using the FYC.

1st you mentioned it is an "Advanced Mechanic" then give your example of how you used it. BUT in your introduction post you mention you're in your 5th year as an umpire, do you honestly think 5 years is enough experience to build that into your game? I do not know you on the field, but would have to say not.

You also mentioned you didn't have to "actually make the FY call." That's great, but don't you see that you set the table for the guys next at-bat? The catcher knew you were going to screw him, the batter knew he was going to be screwed. The call you made which altered or changed the game was telling the batter, "you'd better be swinging..." You then mentioned he was swinging and fouling junk. You wrote "...the batter also got my message..." you should have said he understood your threat. That's what you did is threaten him into playing outside his normal game and ability. If he called your bluff and didn't swing at the bad pitches, what would you have done? Call bad ones good? Then what would you have done if he argued that your screwing him? Would you have then dumped him for calling your bluff and arguing pitches which you know are bad? You just got lucky in your situation.

You also said you told the catcher "here comes your best friend," you're basically telling the catcher "help me screw this guy." I don't know if you realize that your credibility with that catcher just went down.

At the end you compared not giving the benefit of the doubt on a close call to a FYC. These are absolutely different things because there is judgement being involved on a close call or play and you are applying your judgement to the situation, while a FYC is F#ing a certain player or team. I do have a bit less a problem on calling a pitch one way or another depending on who is doing the complaining. The pitch is either a strike or it's not, the player is either out or he's not. Deciding safes and outs or balls and strikes by what you think deserves to happen will make you an inconsistant umpire and not able to work the big games.

As umpires we are given a tools to handle these situations -- ejections or in HS benching. Youve written before youre hesitant in making ejections when you probably should. I'd make sure if I were you that youre not doing things like this so you don't have to eject. There's a big difference, but I still believe he's either got to go or you have to find a appropriate way to manage the situation.

I think nearly everybody would agree that "make up calls" are a bad idea in all situations, I see the FYC as a make up call to the umpire.

Great comments!

I first want to address PM'ing me your comments. I hope you or anybody don't feel uncomfortable/threatened about posting to this site, or disagreeing with me or any other member. You made a great post/PM, you have great points, and you were professional in making them and did not make personal attacks. I wanted to post this b/c you made great points.

Now I'll address your points.

Yes, I do agree I'm probably too junior to be using the FYC. In my case it just sort of happened, and I realized it later. It doesn't make it any better.

You can say I threatened him into swinging/fouling junk pitches, but he had the understanding of what of what is happening. I also believe that his swinging at bad ones was almost his acknowledgement that he knew he'd done wrong before. This is why it won't work on a Bronco Game. But you have made me rethink if this really was a FYC type of call versus some others I've seen.

Had he not swung, he would have had a bit larger of a strike zone, yes, but not anything ridiculous. Had he argued then, yes. I would have dumped him because he was on a shorter leash. This was my way of keeping him in the game the first time when I had all rights to send him.

I believe the rest are just differences in umpiring styles and philosophies.

[LMSANS]

I received this PM this morning from a member and wanted to share it:

Great comments!

I first want to address PM'ing me your comments. I hope you or anybody don't feel uncomfortable/threatened about posting to this site, or disagreeing with me or any other member. You made a great post/PM, you have great points, and you were professional in making them and did not make personal attacks. I wanted to post this b/c you made great points.

Now I'll address your points.

Yes, I do agree I'm probably too junior to be using the FYC. In my case it just sort of happened, and I realized it later. It doesn't make it any better.

You can say I threatened him into swinging/fouling junk pitches, but he had the understanding of what of what is happening. I also believe that his swinging at bad ones was almost his acknowledgement that he knew he'd done wrong before. This is why it won't work on a Bronco Game. But you have made me rethink if this really was a FYC type of call versus some others I've seen.

Had he not swung, he would have had a bit larger of a strike zone, yes, but not anything ridiculous. Had he argued then, yes. I would have dumped him because he was on a shorter leash. This was my way of keeping him in the game the first time when I had all rights to send him.

I believe the rest are just differences in umpiring styles and philosophies.

First I want to nominate the PM for post of the month.

I have had a lot of respect for you since joining this place. However, I am having second thoughts with this thread. While I will enlarge the zone for the level of play. I am not doing it for an individual player. Especially to punish him for showing me up.

I think you had an error in judgement in this particular circumstance. There are prescribed methods of dealing with unacceptable behavior and cheating a player is not one of them.

I may only have your level of experience, but I can not envision having enough experience that I can take it upon myself to cheat a player to teach him a lesson.

In my estimation, the FYC as described is nothing less than cheating.

[Stan W.]

I have read the thread here and elsewhere with interest, yet I hesitated to jump in on either thread as this topic has the potential to divide us as umpires. This is one of "those" topics....its hard to find or support any middle ground....

I have been umpiring a long time and when I was being trained...(read mid 80's here) the FYC was taught to us as a tool and often bragged about by those higher level guys who used it......I never was comfortable with it and to be honest just couldnt bring myself to justify it. Especially when the coach was the problem...I could not see how it was fair to the player to have a call go against him to correct the behavior of a coach....

I did however see the "logic" in it, since there was no "Middle ground".....we can't call a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.........and one strike seemed a small price to pay versus dropping the bomb (ejection)...

I then started working with a guy who felt (as has been stated elsewhere) that if they had done enough for a FYC call then they had done enough to be ejected. He had zero tolerance...he did not care is they had to sit out a second game... period...

So I guess I fall somewhere in between.....I understand it and I dont like it.....I probably am more apt to eject than call it.........

[mstaylor]

Stan and I have very similar backgrounds and was taught to use it. As an umpire goes through the levels of umpiring you will add and loose game management tools, more on that later. Depending on your experience and years in the business whether you have been taught this or not. I haven't used it in many years but I have the experience level to not need it. I don't think you would have the practice taught at any clinic nowadays.

Some guys coming up will toss too fast, some not enough. Many times the roles will reverse and the quick finger that never tosses gets toss happy and viceversa. As they progress it evens out as they learn what really is a good toss and when to pass. The FYC was learned and disgarded somewhere in the process.

All that said, is there a place for it in modern baseball. Maybe, but only above HS and probably in adult baseball only, it's only place I could see me using it. As I say, I have reached a level that I can't see me needing it. I toss very few but because I have the reputation that I will so I don't need to.

[jjb]

I think one of the criteria for using the FUC is whether or not the recipient will be aware what is going on. You're using it to stop a certain behavior, before it reaches the point of ejection. If the player knows what's happening, (hopefully), he'll get the message, both the behavior and the FUC will cease, and we get on with the game. If the player doesn't know what's happening, you're just throwing gas on an already "too hot" burning fire. This is where the age of the player and level of baseball come in. At the upper levels, everybody will know what's happening. At the lower levels, it'll just be a case of "the umpire's screwing us".

Short story: Varsity HS pitcher, with a second-string JV catcher, late in the game (bad combination). The catcher starts diving out of the way, and I'm getting killed back there. I clean the plate, and let the catcher know it's his job to catch the ball, not me. He laughs at me and says "hey, as long as it's not me getting hit". I don't say a word. The next pitch, belt-high, center of the plate: "ball". The catcher turns and looks at me, I don't say a word. Next pitch, same place, same call. Now he's looking at me like I'm nuts. I don't look at him, I just whisper over his shoulder, "you let me know when I've made my point". He says, "I've got it, Blue", he starts catching the ball, and we go on with the game. Anyway, here's my point: afterward, I shake the pitcher's' hand, and let him know what was happening in there. He laughs at me and says, "Blue, both me and the coach knew exactly what you were doing. This guy's been doing this to umpires a lot this season".

[POLOGREEN]

The only thing I can say I've done that comes close is calling pitches strikes that are border line to a batter who has given me a "problem" or not calling close pitches strikes to a pitcher who has also been a "problem", BUT when I find myself doing this I stop and I remember why I am umpiring and get back to doing my job to the best of my ability and being the best I can be. I believe that we are there to be examples of FAIR play. I can't agree on ever employing a FYC. I will make sure the players know who is in charge and that the coaches also know this. I AM A "BIT" (VERY MUCH SO) OF A CONTROL FREAK.

[jjb]

Your points are valid, Polo, and as long as it seems to work for you, hey, Vaya con Dios. However, I think you may be missing the point: it's not by any means intended to be "unfair". It's also not a common practice: I may have to use it once or twice a season.

What it's intended to do is to change unacceptable behavior without having to eject, and after we realize that a simple warning won't work. I think we'll agree that tossing someone should be the last resort, and that's not why we're out there.

Let's take one of your examples. You've got a batter whining about your zone. You give him the standard, "Hey, knock it off" speech, and it doesn't work. So now, you've started calling borderline strikes.

My question is: "How does he know that you're calling these strikes in response to his whining, or maybe is it just because you're a lousy umpire"? (His thoughts, not mine). Are you making the situation better, or worse? On the other hand, suppose you call a not-so-borderline strike, and (quietly) tell him, "See, Dude, I've got the indicator, here. Keep whining, and you're either in for a long night, or a short one." You've established what you'll accept, and what the consequences are for crossing the line. It's done quietly, with no fuss. Like I said, do whatever works for you: this is just what works for me.

[mstaylor]

In the PM post there was one thing no one has mentioned. I like the post and can appreciate his points but he mentions we have benching in HS in place of a FUC. Now I would NEVER advocate using it at the HS level you can restrict to the dugout either. This is a myth that is gaining ground every year. Fed has given us the ability to restrict coaches for things short of an ejection. They changed the illegal substitution rule to restriction for the player. The problem is this is the only thing we are allowed restrict for, not any disciplinarian reason. As soon as the rule was changed some began thinking we were given free rein to do what we want. It gets repeated in in meetings or on the internet and it gains legs. Unchecked it will continue to grow and less enlightened umpires will think restricted can be used for anything they want.

Sorry for the rant but I hate to see myths live. :clap:

[MCLEOD36]

MS,

No diffent then me on the tossing, have built a reputation of knowing the rules (usually, ha ha) and the mockery point was only one of i would rather bark then bite and the ones I have tossed got the point quickly. We have some very sloppy umpires in JV and under leagues in South Florida and it is a shame. HS and above here are very good and the coaches typically arent dads of the shortstops.

[Bigdog]

Hey all,

I don't believe in using the FYC because once you start to consider using it, IMHO, you start getting emotionally tied to the game against one team. If a player does something that bad, there are other ways to deal with it, i.e. bench restriction, or ejection.

Stay emotionally out of the game so it doesn't turn around and bite you in the butt somewhere down the line when your "tainted" viewpoint could affect the outcome of a play, inning, or game.

By tainted, I mean that you are looking to send a message with a call instead of making the correct call.

Bigdog:cool:

[carolinablue]

I'm not experienced enough to use a FYC but I can give an example of it being used in MLB this past season. I can't remember the player for sure but it was against the Braves. I think it was Escobar but maybe not. Anyway the player was giving the PU a hard time on balls and strikes and showing him up. His strike zone got a lot wider for about the next five games no matter who was behind the plate. I think he got the point and lightened up. Point is that the FYC may be a way to handle a player that you know you are going to see time after time during the season instead of letting it carry out game after game. Also you may be making it easy for future umps. that have to deal with the same player. Although you could probably achieve the same result with an ejection.

[mstaylor]

It was used quite a bit in years past at the MLB level. I saw a clip in a clinic once where the pitcher was yakking a lot at the PU. He called a pitch a ball loudly and looked at the dugout. Then he called ball two and looked at the dugout. On the third pitch he said,"Ball F***ing three!" Looked at the dugout and said," Better have a pitcher ready!" " Ball f***ing four!" Rhen he tossed the pitcher.

Now that was another time and a whole different philosophy than is being used today. I would never consider using anything to that extreme ever in any level we work. Back then there was a whole different dynamic used in arguments between umpires and managers. For an example of times past go to Youtube and search Earl Weaver. You will find a clip between Earl and the U1. The language used by both would never fly today.

[PeteBooth]

There was a pretty good thread going at officiating.com about Making a Point and the use of FYC calls.

I don't want to beat the dead horse, but I thought this was a great topic, unfortunately it went to more of a personal attack issue and was appropriately closed.

UIC, hopefully this site will take off. It's not uncommon for threads to be locked at officiating.com and what was once a great site has gone way downhill and in a way is starting to (if not already there) resemble the old Gary McGrifth site that is no longer there.

Perhaps this can be a "new home"

Ok onto the OP.

I do not think the FYC call is an advanced mechanic. It's a mechanic that has been around but not recently. It's akin to the neighborhood play , phantom tag etc. The FYC, neighborhood play and phantom tag were all very prevalent when I played.

It was a given if you showed up blue you better be swinging no matter where the pitch was.

Therefore, first and foremost this type mechanic can ONLY be used for particpants who get IT.

Generally speaking adult mens league games and summer college leagues.

Also, what irks me somehat is this.

It's ok to disagree with someone's rule interp, mechanic etc. but to then say using "this technique" means you are unethical or a cheater is just plain hogwash.

If an umpire is uncomfortable using the FYC - so be it but on the "flip side" do not condem it either.

Also, it's a mechanic that is NOT used all year long. It is used Once / Twice per yeat TOPS that's it.

It's Purpose: Unlike football / basketball as baseball officials we cannot penalize the team ie; a 15 yd penalty plus automatic first down or 2 free throws and the ball again. All we have is an EJ.

Now is it our job to keep players in the game? - NO BUT by sending a message this player avoids the EJ, plus one game suspension plus paying back a hefty fine.

Therefore, if you asked the player who just got hosed on a strike 3 call which he would have preferred, most would appreciate the FYC and then start over again.

I gave an FYC call. Lefty F1 in a summer college game. Mean hook and the batter simply looked bad on a called strike 2. He proceeded to draw a line and say "Blue I could not have hit that one with a tree trunk" I did nothing.

The "light bulb" went off on the part of F2 who proceeded to give a target some 7 inches outside where I properly rang up strike 3.

The next time this batter came up he said "Blue can we start over" to which I replied No problem.

It is a "dinasour technique" so it's use is limited because today's players do not get IT. Therefore, I have only used this tecnique in the adult mens leagues / summer college leagues where the players got IT.

It is not an advanced technique but one in which the particpants know what you are doing.

In summary: I have no problem if an official is uncomfortable using this technique and would rather EJ but I do have a problem if an official says that this type of technique is unethical and cheating.

If an official thinks that the FYC etc. is cheating then it stands to reason they do not "give" the neighborhood call or the "phantom tag" call either.

Good topic and as mentioned above hopefully we can all find a "new home" because officiating.com is not what it used to be.

Pete Booth

[mstaylor]

Pete:

I completely agree with the board status and the subject at hand. I've always said if you don't want to use the mechanic then don't but used properly it is a viable mechanic.

[carolinablue]

I would say that you would probably need to be of good rep. with the players and coaches to get by with it. If some of your normal calls resemble FYCalls, I don't think it's gonna work.

[Umpire in Chief]

UIC, hopefully this site will take off. It's not uncommon for threads to be locked at officiating.com and what was once a great site has gone way downhill and in a way is starting to (if not already there) resemble the old Gary McGrifth site that is no longer there.

Perhaps this can be a "new home"

Thanks Pete.

My point is not to criticize Bob or Mick for closing the FYC thread over there because it did turn into more personal attacks (mild) than legitimate discussion and should have been closed. IMO.

I'm glad to see everybody discussing this heated topic and not resorting to the personal attacks. Good job all.

[MCLEOD36]

Shoot, and I wanted to call you Warren a dirty rotten scoundrel..... When I got back into umpiring a couple of years ago, I looked for sites like this and books etc. so I could refresh myself quickly. This site has been excellent in as I call it going "open Kimono" and allowing people to go ok, I have an issue or this situation and I need input. There are not many ump sites, but the ones that are out there, can be filled with technicians and those bringing out experiences. The ones with contributors that are "my way or highway ones", well life can be too short.

Happy Holidays to all, and yes, in Miami we still have games going on....

[LMSANS]

...

In summary: I have no problem if an official is uncomfortable using this technique and would rather EJ but I do have a problem if an official says that this type of technique is unethical and cheating.

If an official thinks that the FYC etc. is cheating then it stands to reason they do not "give" the neighborhood call or the "phantom tag" call either...

Pete Booth

I guess I'm in the minority here. I guess by calling it a "technique" or a "mechanic", it is alright to change the rules to fit your situation.

Oops sorry, the rules are being changed by the mechanic. My bad.

:smachhead:

[POLOGREEN]

I have NO use for the "FYC" never want it, and won't let it, get that far.