1 Man Strike Zone

[Jocko]

Where you stand will most definitely affect your zone. Are balls/strikes better seen from behind the mound or behind the plate?

[BT_Blue]

Lets not even get into the fact you cant see fair-foul

[tldavis19]

I personally don't think its fair to any pitcher to attempt to call a game from behind the mound. The players put in the effort to play a good game, so I'll take the sacrifice of a little extra equipment in order to be able to call a fair game for them.

[Richvee]

haha. I just posted in the other thread that maybe someone should make this poll. I couldn't figure out how to do it. Thanks Jocko!

[BT_Blue]

I'm curious is ANYONE will vote for behind F1?

[Richvee]

I'm curious is ANYONE will vote for behind F1?

One. He's pretty adamant about it in the Varsity thread in the HS section. That's what prompted this poll. 

[T-Rav]

I was hoping calling one man games behind F1 was not the norm. 

 

Except maybe for this guy....

 

[Jocko]

That's a picture of Dannytheman before he started using Sensa©!

Notice how good his uniform looks with the non-patent belt

I'm recusing myself from the poll, since it's mine

[BT_Blue]

That's a picture of Dannytheman before he started using Sensa©!

Notice how good his uniform looks with the non-patent belt

I'm recusing myself from the poll, since it's mine

 

So you are saying that YOU are the one that works behind the pitcher.

[Jocko]

That's a picture of Dannytheman before he started using Sensa©!Notice how good his uniform looks with the non-patent belt :fuel:I'm recusing myself from the poll, since it's mine

 So you are saying that YOU are the one that works behind the pitcher.I don't work 1 man

[IABlue]

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

[SnareDrum]

F1.

 

I used to work a lot of games at the Mickey Owen Baseball School, and they were adamant about calling everything from behind F1. Hated it. I think they thought the overall field coverage was better from there. One day, my partner was late showing up so I was one-man from behind the plate for three innings. After that, they said I could do whatever was comfortable for me.

 

Here in our City Leagues, all of our Rec leagues pre-12U are one man, and we have them work from behind the plate. Usually it's the new guys and, well, others. If they do well with that, they might get to "move up". 3 games in 90+ degree heat by yourself in full gear will test a lot... hustle, focus, dedication, and more... from any umpire.

[SnareDrum]

Typing in the dark here... that should say "F2" up there.

[BalkHawk]

Behind the pitcher?

 

                       

 

as for the cameras at MLB games, they are in the second best place. 

[Jocko]

Behind the pitcher?                          as for the cameras at MLB games, they are in the second best place. 

tell us what you REALLY think....

[scrounge]

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

 

Dude, you can't seriously be using a TV camera angle argument, are you? The reason a mask cam is not the primary angle is because it MOVES all the time and would give viewers vertigo. The center field camera (which isn't even directly in center field in almost all cases but offset a bit) is predictable, controllable, stable, and easy. If they could put a cameraman instead of the umpire, they would. And never missed a pitch? Ever? You're a better ump than me and the rest of the mortals, then.

 

This is getting bizarre.

[BalkHawk]

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

 

I forget, what is the FIRST priority for an umpire?

 

A backstop camera would look up the umpire's 

 

Any self-respecting umpire would laugh in your face if you asked him to wear a camera.

 

You think you haven't missed a pitch from behind F1. Not to mention all the fouls/foul tips, h.b.p., catcher interference, etc. etc.

 

Who cares about a steal of 2nd. From a few steps out from behind the catcher you get  slightly better view than all the spectators. If I get to be on top of a base IT'S THE CASH MACHINE, $CHAAA$CHING$

[IABlue]

This is from a Carl Childress article written several years ago.  I assume you guys know who that is.

 

Let me say straight out: A good umpire can use any stance – and still be good. Slot, scissors, knee, box: History has proved that a talented official can overcome the deficiencies inherent in any stance. For no umpiring position, save the one where the umpire calls from behind the pitcher, is free of problems. Note 1: An umpire can see so well from behind the pitcher, I believe that if Bill Klem in 1906 had hired two "linesmen" to call fair/foul and watch runners touch the bases, we’d call balls and strikes from the mound today.

 

http://www.umpire.org/writers/childress1.html

[IABlue]

Behind the pitcher?

 

                       

 

as for the cameras at MLB games, they are in the second best place. 

Because the TV execs that have billions of dollars invested in MLB broadcasts  are idots?

[Richvee]

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

 

 

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases. 

WOW.     

[IABlue]

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

 

 

 

You think you haven't missed a pitch from behind F1. Not to mention all the fouls/foul tips, h.b.p., catcher interference, etc. etc.

I guarantee that I miss a lot less than you do behind the plate.  (edit: I mean when I'm standing behind the pitcher.  I am not implying that I am necessarily a better plate umpire than you are.  But I am better behind the mound than you are behind the plate, guaranteed.)

 

And we are only talking balls and strikes, not "catcher interference, etc, etc.

 

Try and stay on topic.

[IABlue]

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

 

Dude, you can't seriously be using a TV camera angle argument, are you? The reason a mask cam is not the primary angle is because it MOVES all the time and would give viewers vertigo. The center field camera (which isn't even directly in center field in almost all cases but offset a bit) is predictable, controllable, stable, and easy. If they could put a cameraman instead of the umpire, they would. And never missed a pitch? Ever? You're a better ump than me and the rest of the mortals, then.

 

This is getting bizarre.

It's really hard to miss one while looking directly at home plate with no catcher or batter in your way.  Pretty damned hard to do.  Just like it's nearly impossible to miss one from your living room.  This ain't rocket science.

[mjr_2013]

I kind of like that IABlue isn't backing down. Standing up for what he believes.

 

I disagree with him, but I like that he isn't immediately backtracking.

 

The reason for me that behind HP is the best for balls/strikes (not getting into fair/foul and OOP), is because of the breaking pitch, or, in some youth leagues, pretty much any pitch. Anyone can tell, from any part of the ball park, that a fastball right down the pipe is a strike. Similarly, anyone can tell when a pitch bounces, it's a ball.

But when there is a nice curveball at upper levels, or a pitcher who can't throw a ball straight yet at lower levels, you need to exactly where the pitch crosses the plate to accurately judge it... If you're 70-75 feet away, or even in youth leagues, 50-55 feet away, it would take a superhero like depth perception to be able to tell.

 

Just my  .

[scrounge]

 

Keep in mind that we're only talking about balls and strikes here.  I admit there are advantages to behind the catcher for things like fair/foul and plays at the plate.

 

If the angle behind the catcher is the best to see the strike zone, then why aren't TV cameras set up at the backstop for televised games?  How about putting one in the umpire's mask (yes, I know they have these).  How come this isn't used as the primary TV angle?

 

The reason you never see this angle is because it sucks.  Anybody can watch a televised game from the center field camera (behind the pitcher) and could call an accurate and consistent strike zone.

 

I've never missed a pitch from the bases.  It's obvious where everything is at.  I'll try to dig up the Carl Childress article where he makes these exact same points.

 

Dude, you can't seriously be using a TV camera angle argument, are you? The reason a mask cam is not the primary angle is because it MOVES all the time and would give viewers vertigo. The center field camera (which isn't even directly in center field in almost all cases but offset a bit) is predictable, controllable, stable, and easy. If they could put a cameraman instead of the umpire, they would. And never missed a pitch? Ever? You're a better ump than me and the rest of the mortals, then.

 

This is getting bizarre.

It's really hard to miss one while looking directly at home plate with no catcher or batter in your way.  Pretty damned hard to do.  Just like it's nearly impossible to miss one from your living room.  This ain't rocket science.

 

Well, then, by your logic we should just eliminate home plate umps and just go with Tim McGarble and the K-Zone.

 

Look, you like being behind F1, that's cool. But why do you have to be such a jerk to those who disagree? And again, *never* missed a pitch? That's the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that kills your credibility.

[IABlue]

I kind of like that IABlue isn't backing down. Standing up for what he believes.

 

I disagree with him, but I like that he isn't immediately backtracking.

 

The reason for me that behind HP is the best for balls/strikes (not getting into fair/foul and OOP), is because of the breaking pitch, or, in some youth leagues, pretty much any pitch. Anyone can tell, from any part of the ball park, that a fastball right down the pipe is a strike. Similarly, anyone can tell when a pitch bounces, it's a ball.

But when there is a nice curveball at upper levels, or a pitcher who can't throw a ball straight yet at lower levels, you need to exactly where the pitch crosses the plate to accurately judge it... If you're 70-75 feet away, or even in youth leagues, 50-55 feet away, it would take a superhero like depth perception to be able to tell.

 

Just my  .

Maybe at a lower level, I wouldn't know as I rarely work anything below high school varsity.

 

I can tell you with absolute certainly that I can accurately judge an MLB breaking ball on TV from my living room from EXACTLY the same angle that I would when looking from behind the pitcher's mound if I were on the field.