Calling the Backdoor Curve

[umpire_scott]

 

The only time I really use the mitt is on pitches on the corners (of slightly off the corners depending on level of play).  If the ball is a little outside of the zone but the pitcher hit the glove and it didn't move then I will be more likely to call it a strike.  Where as the same pitch when the catcher is setting up middle in he might not get.

 

That contradicts your earlier post where you said you never use the glove and is one example of what others including me are saying about using the glove.

 

 

.  Catchers frame pitches all the time by pulling the mitt back into the zone.

 

 

That sentence contradicts itself because framing and pulling are different things.

 

 

Seriously?

 

When others were talking about using the mitt I assumed they were talking about where the ball ended up in the glove in reference to whether it was outside/inside or high/low.  I'm talking about rewarding a pitcher for hitting his target.  To me those are two different things.

 

That sentence is on no way contradictory.  Coaches tell catchers to frame the pitches and they mean to both frame strikes and frame non-strikes.  When they frame a non-strike they pull it into the zone before they frame it.

[kylejt]

You need to learn what the expected call is for the level, and location you're calling at. Do that, and your games will go smoothly.

 

I wish someone would have given me this advice before my third year.

 

 

Wait for the catcher to set up, and figure where, in relationship to the dish, the mitt is. Don't call a strike on balls he has to reach over either knee for. His knees are more than the width of the plate, and no one expects that to be called.

 

If he reaches below his knees, or turns the mitt over, it had better be a breaking ball to be a strike. If not, no one espects a strike.

 

If he reaches over his eyes, no one expects that, either.

 

Those of you who just call the plate, and don't use your catcher, are probably getting yelled at more than you should.

[umpire_scott]

You need to learn what the expected call is for the level, and location you're calling at. Do that, and your games will go smoothly.

 

I wish someone would have given me this advice before my third year.

 

 

Wait for the catcher to set up, and figure where, in relationship to the dish, the mitt is. Don't call a strike on balls he has to reach over either knee for. His knees are more than the width of the plate, and no one expects that to be called.

 

If he reaches below his knees, or turns the mitt over, it had better be a breaking ball to be a strike. If not, no one espects a strike.

 

If he reaches over his eyes, no one expects that, either.

 

Those of you who just call the plate, and don't use your catcher, are probably getting yelled at more than you should.

 

 

Since I've stopped using the mitt I've felt much stronger in my calls.  If the catcher catches the ball low that might mean that the ball dropped at the end due to lack of velocity.  His pitch might have just had a little quirky drop to it based on the spin of the ball.  If I wait until it hits the glove then I process all these questions:  1.  Where did the pitch appear to cross the plate?; 2. Where did the catcher catch it?; 3. How fast was it going?; 4. What kind of pitch was it?.  How can I confidently know whether it was a strike when IN THE ZONE.  That's when it's supposed to be called so that's where I look.  I've found that I am much more consistent when I simplify it and call it the only place that matters.

[blue23ll]

The mitt is one of the several points of reference you can use to call strikes. Generally, the top of the catchers head is the uppermost limit, anything caught above the catchers head is probably too high. The catchers knees can provide points of reference to both the low pitch and the inside and outside pitches, generally. These are not absolutes, but can provide you consistent points of reference.

 

If you don't use the mitt as a reference, you should at least not decide the pitch until it has reached the catchers mitt, in my opinion.

[scrounge]

 

You need to learn what the expected call is for the level, and location you're calling at. Do that, and your games will go smoothly.

 

I wish someone would have given me this advice before my third year.

 

 

Wait for the catcher to set up, and figure where, in relationship to the dish, the mitt is. Don't call a strike on balls he has to reach over either knee for. His knees are more than the width of the plate, and no one expects that to be called.

 

If he reaches below his knees, or turns the mitt over, it had better be a breaking ball to be a strike. If not, no one espects a strike.

 

If he reaches over his eyes, no one expects that, either.

 

Those of you who just call the plate, and don't use your catcher, are probably getting yelled at more than you should.

 

 

Since I've stopped using the mitt I've felt much stronger in my calls.  If the catcher catches the ball low that might mean that the ball dropped at the end due to lack of velocity.  His pitch might have just had a little quirky drop to it based on the spin of the ball.  If I wait until it hits the glove then I process all these questions:  1.  Where did the pitch appear to cross the plate?; 2. Where did the catcher catch it?; 3. How fast was it going?; 4. What kind of pitch was it?.  How can I confidently know whether it was a strike when IN THE ZONE.  That's when it's supposed to be called so that's where I look.  I've found that I am much more consistent when I simplify it and call it the only place that matters.

 

 

What level of ball are you doing? What you're describing sounds like youth/rec ball...and may be entirely appropriate for that. You can't use catchers at really young or really bad levels. That lack of velocity or arc balls is common at those levels, but much less so at the high JV and up that others seem to be describing. As to that quirky drop...well, that's just not physically possible. There are no forces on a ball that magically appear at the end of flight. Also, yes, ALL of those questions are good questions. And if you've got good timing, you've got ample time to process them all and make a full decision. You may think you're focusing only on the plate, but I bet you're actually making the decision a couple feet in front.

[NCAAump2]

First of all, "framing" the pitch and "pulling" the pitch, are two ENTIRELY different things.  The catcher either "frames" it by the way he catches it, or he "pulls" a pitch into the strike zone when he thought it wasn't there.  

 

You say you only look at where the pitch crosses the plate, and you don't use the mitt or where the ball is caught to determine whether it was a ball or strike.  So, If I understand you correctly, a SH*#ty curve ball that you determine to cross the plate then dives into the dirt, as it gets to the catcher, you're still ringing that up?  

[umpire_scott]

Obviously I'm not saying balls can drop a foot in the span from the plate to the catchers mitt.  We are talking about borderline pitches here.  So if I'm watching a ball come in that is the lowest part of the strike zone, and I wait and see where the catcher catches it to determine whether I call it a strike or not, then I'm calling it at that point versus where it's supposed to be called (over the plate).  If I'm seeing the ball well over the plate then I don't see the point in using the position of the mitt to assist me with the call.  As I said I used to allow the mitt to overrule my judgement on calls where I thought they were ball or strikes over the plate, and then when I saw where they were caught, I hesitated.  Since I stopped doing this I feel like my zone has improved and become more consistent because I'm doing the same thing on every pitch and my focus is in the same place on every pitch.  

 

To me the main reason to call where the catcher catches it is that is what the fans and coaches look at mostly.  So it is probably a preferable strategy in keeping them off your back.  But I'm stubborn, I want to call the best zone I can.  I would say that taken in it's entirety I'm an average umpire.  I need to work on my rules knowledge, and game management.  But the one thing I've been complimented on consistently by other umpires is my zone.

[umpire_scott]

First of all, "framing" the pitch and "pulling" the pitch, are two ENTIRELY different things.  The catcher either "frames" it by the way he catches it, or he "pulls" a pitch into the strike zone when he thought it wasn't there.  

 

You say you only look at where the pitch crosses the plate, and you don't use the mitt or where the ball is caught to determine whether it was a ball or strike.  So, If I understand you correctly, a SH*#ty curve ball that you determine to cross the plate then dives into the dirt, as it gets to the catcher, you're still ringing that up?  

 

How is it a SH*#ty curve if it crosses the plate in the zone and then dives into the dirt behind the plate.  That's an almost unhittable pitch that is a strike if the batter looks at it.  I'm really at a loss how you can say that even if it crosses the plate as a strike, but dives late and is out of the zone when it gets to the catcher it's not a strike.  That completely contradicts the definition of a strike.  No where in any baseball rules book where the "strike zone" described does it make any reference to the catcher.  It's "over the plate".

[maven]

You've received quite a bit of good advice here. It's a shame you won't accept it.

If you want to argue about it, why did you ask in the first place? Try some new things: if they work for you and make you better, great. If not, try something else.

You want to improve, right?

maven

[MidAmUmp]

 

My point is that the mitt has nothing to do with whether the ball was a strike or not.  Catchers frame pitches all the time by pulling the mitt back into the zone.  My focus is always on the plate and that's what I call period.  I used to use the mitt as a piece of reference.  Since i stopped using it I've been far more confident and consistent in my zone.  Balls break differently, come in at different speeds, and have different arcs.  Where it hits the mitt has nothing to do with where it crossed the plate.  If you see it cross the zone you have no reason to use the mitt as any point of reference.

 

 

The mitt does have something to do with whether the ball is a strike or not.  It's called timing.  Timing is defined as the proper use of eyes, which means seeing everything happen before making a decision.  If you are taking a snapshot in your mind of the pitch being a ball or strike as it crosses the plate, you are not seeing everything happen.  A lot can happen between the plate and the glove that can change a pitch from a strike to a ball.

 

See the ball out of the pitcher's hand, through the zone, into the glove and how the catcher catches the pitch.  A pitch is a strike until proven otherwise and at any point along that path it could prove to be a ball.

 

Yes, catchers frame pitches...badly.  That's an automatic ball.

 

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the knees and the catcher catches it in the dirt, it's a ball.

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the letters and the catcher catches it at the waist, it's a strike.

If a pitch is a ball or 2 off the plate and the catcher gets to it and sticks it, it's a strike.

If a pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back into the center of the plate, it's a ball.

 

Appearance is part of the equation.  You have to see how the catcher catches it and take that into consideration.

 

If appearance didn't matter, we'd all turn our hats around backards and wear shorts.

[umpire_scott]

You've received quite a bit of good advice here. It's a shame you won't accept it.

If you want to argue about it, why did you ask in the first place? Try some new things: if they work for you and make you better, great. If not, try something else.

You want to improve, right?

maven

 

 

I assume you are talking to me, but I'm not the one who posted the original question.  I only commented on it.  I have no issue taking advice.  But that advice seems to be to call balls that cross the plate as strikes, balls if they look that way in the catcher's mitt.  All I said was something that works for me (focusing on the zone instead of the mitt), as potential advice for the OP.  Others have got on here and told me that I'm wrong to not focus on the mitt.  I have not told anyone they're wrong, I've just defended my position, which btw is defended in the rule book on the definition of a strike.

[PonyUmpire]

Although this has deviated bit from the topic, you guys have given me some really good suggestions.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

My point is that the mitt has nothing to do with whether the ball was a strike or not.  Catchers frame pitches all the time by pulling the mitt back into the zone.  My focus is always on the plate and that's what I call period.  I used to use the mitt as a piece of reference.  Since i stopped using it I've been far more confident and consistent in my zone.  Balls break differently, come in at different speeds, and have different arcs.  Where it hits the mitt has nothing to do with where it crossed the plate.  If you see it cross the zone you have no reason to use the mitt as any point of reference.

 

 

The mitt does have something to do with whether the ball is a strike or not.  It's called timing.  Timing is defined as the proper use of eyes, which means seeing everything happen before making a decision.  If you are taking a snapshot in your mind of the pitch being a ball or strike as it crosses the plate, you are not seeing everything happen.  A lot can happen between the plate and the glove that can change a pitch from a strike to a ball.

 

See the ball out of the pitcher's hand, through the zone, into the glove and how the catcher catches the pitch.  A pitch is a strike until proven otherwise and at any point along that path it could prove to be a ball.

 

Yes, catchers frame pitches...badly.  That's an automatic ball.

 

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the knees and the catcher catches it in the dirt, it's a ball.

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the letters and the catcher catches it at the waist, it's a strike.

If a pitch is a ball or 2 off the plate and the catcher gets to it and sticks it, it's a strike.

If a pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back into the center of the plate, it's a ball.

 

Appearance is part of the equation.  You have to see how the catcher catches it and take that into consideration.

 

If appearance didn't matter, we'd all turn our hats around backards and wear shorts.

 

 

Philosophically I understand some of what you are saying.  But you lost me twice:

 

1)  "A lot can happen between the plate and the glove to make a strike a ball."  By rule nothing can happen between the plate and the glove because the ball is no longer in the strike zone.  The strike zone exists above the plate, not behind it.

 

2)  "A pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back to the middle of the plate, it's a ball".  I am stunned that someone with your credentials is advocating taking a pitch that you clearly saw meet the requirements of a strike (any part of the ball passe through any part of the strike zone), and calling it a ball because of something that the catcher did.

 

I'm not saying that a catchers movement never effects my zone.  But I would never look at a pitch feel that I saw it cross the zone and then call it a ball anyway.

[scrounge]

 

 

 

My point is that the mitt has nothing to do with whether the ball was a strike or not.  Catchers frame pitches all the time by pulling the mitt back into the zone.  My focus is always on the plate and that's what I call period.  I used to use the mitt as a piece of reference.  Since i stopped using it I've been far more confident and consistent in my zone.  Balls break differently, come in at different speeds, and have different arcs.  Where it hits the mitt has nothing to do with where it crossed the plate.  If you see it cross the zone you have no reason to use the mitt as any point of reference.

 

 

The mitt does have something to do with whether the ball is a strike or not.  It's called timing.  Timing is defined as the proper use of eyes, which means seeing everything happen before making a decision.  If you are taking a snapshot in your mind of the pitch being a ball or strike as it crosses the plate, you are not seeing everything happen.  A lot can happen between the plate and the glove that can change a pitch from a strike to a ball.

 

See the ball out of the pitcher's hand, through the zone, into the glove and how the catcher catches the pitch.  A pitch is a strike until proven otherwise and at any point along that path it could prove to be a ball.

 

Yes, catchers frame pitches...badly.  That's an automatic ball.

 

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the knees and the catcher catches it in the dirt, it's a ball.

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the letters and the catcher catches it at the waist, it's a strike.

If a pitch is a ball or 2 off the plate and the catcher gets to it and sticks it, it's a strike.

If a pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back into the center of the plate, it's a ball.

 

Appearance is part of the equation.  You have to see how the catcher catches it and take that into consideration.

 

If appearance didn't matter, we'd all turn our hats around backards and wear shorts.

 

 

Philosophically I understand some of what you are saying.  But you lost me twice:

 

1)  "A lot can happen between the plate and the glove to make a strike a ball."  By rule nothing can happen between the plate and the glove because the ball is no longer in the strike zone.  The strike zone exists above the plate, not behind it.

 

2)  "A pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back to the middle of the plate, it's a ball".  I am stunned that someone with your credentials is advocating taking a pitch that you clearly saw meet the requirements of a strike (any part of the ball passe through any part of the strike zone), and calling it a ball because of something that the catcher did.

 

I'm not saying that a catchers movement never effects my zone.  But I would never look at a pitch feel that I saw it cross the zone and then call it a ball anyway.

 

 

Again, I think we need to know the level and quality of ball you're talking about here. Maybe I'm wrong, but everything I've read (explicitly and between the lines) indicates you're talking about youth/rec ball. Of course at that level you wouldn't use the mitt much - or at all. Anything above JV or above-average travel and you would - or should. It's not SOLELY about perception and acceptance of your call. But it's most certainly not blind to those considerations.

 

1)  I hope and think you didn't mean that as sanctimoniously as it came across, but I don't think anyone meant there was something physically that would happen with the ball between plate and glove (and what on earth could it be anyway). The point as I understood it was that you're cutting off potentially useful information too early. Again, I suspect you're not truly making up your mind over the plate but rather a few feet in front of it.

 

2)  Again, perception and acceptance are factors. You might not agree, you might not like it, but it's a reality. You can fight the glacier, but it's still true. And again, level is important. "Catches the corner" doesn't sound very clear to me - sounds more borderline. And borderline calls are precisely the ones that benefit from more information. Information like where the catcher set up, how he caught, yes - how it looks. Maybe it didn't catch the corner, maybe it did. But if the catcher feels the need to jerk it back into the zone, he's telling the entire world that he didn't think it was a strike either.

 

I understand you won't call what you see as a strike a ball. That's kinda the rub - maybe you're cutting off useful information too quickly and seeing strikes that are really balls in the first place.

[MidAmUmp]

 

 

 

My point is that the mitt has nothing to do with whether the ball was a strike or not.  Catchers frame pitches all the time by pulling the mitt back into the zone.  My focus is always on the plate and that's what I call period.  I used to use the mitt as a piece of reference.  Since i stopped using it I've been far more confident and consistent in my zone.  Balls break differently, come in at different speeds, and have different arcs.  Where it hits the mitt has nothing to do with where it crossed the plate.  If you see it cross the zone you have no reason to use the mitt as any point of reference.

 

 

The mitt does have something to do with whether the ball is a strike or not.  It's called timing.  Timing is defined as the proper use of eyes, which means seeing everything happen before making a decision.  If you are taking a snapshot in your mind of the pitch being a ball or strike as it crosses the plate, you are not seeing everything happen.  A lot can happen between the plate and the glove that can change a pitch from a strike to a ball.

 

See the ball out of the pitcher's hand, through the zone, into the glove and how the catcher catches the pitch.  A pitch is a strike until proven otherwise and at any point along that path it could prove to be a ball.

 

Yes, catchers frame pitches...badly.  That's an automatic ball.

 

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the knees and the catcher catches it in the dirt, it's a ball.

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the letters and the catcher catches it at the waist, it's a strike.

If a pitch is a ball or 2 off the plate and the catcher gets to it and sticks it, it's a strike.

If a pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back into the center of the plate, it's a ball.

 

Appearance is part of the equation.  You have to see how the catcher catches it and take that into consideration.

 

If appearance didn't matter, we'd all turn our hats around backards and wear shorts.

 

 

Philosophically I understand some of what you are saying.  But you lost me twice:

 

1)  "A lot can happen between the plate and the glove to make a strike a ball."  By rule nothing can happen between the plate and the glove because the ball is no longer in the strike zone.  The strike zone exists above the plate, not behind it.

 

2)  "A pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back to the middle of the plate, it's a ball".  I am stunned that someone with your credentials is advocating taking a pitch that you clearly saw meet the requirements of a strike (any part of the ball passe through any part of the strike zone), and calling it a ball because of something that the catcher did.

 

I'm not saying that a catchers movement never effects my zone.  But I would never look at a pitch feel that I saw it cross the zone and then call it a ball anyway.

 

Well...my response is pretty much a carbon copy of what scrounge has just stated, but since you are questioning someone with my "credentials" I guess I should also respond...

 

Yes, I work at a pretty high level and have a pretty decent resume.  I've achieved all of this by not being a "rule book umpire".  Successful umpires work games using common sense and fair play.  If you feel you must call the zone by the book, then good luck with it.  I hope you have success.  Some of this depends on the level you call.  If you are working youth baseball I'm not advocating to ball pitches because the catcher cannot catch it properly...you'll be there for days trying to get a game over with.  But not one clinic, school or umpire training program will tell you to call the pitch solely based on where it crosses the plate.  You cannot accurately decide on a pitch until you've seen the catcher catch the pitch.  If you are deciding on a pitch when it crosses the plate, you've made your mind up when the ball is about 5 feet in front of the plate.  Obviously you can argue this point and I don't have brain data to prove this, but I evaluate well over 100 umpires a year at the various clinics I instruct at and can tell you this is what we see constantly.

 

The fact remains: perception is reality.  If a pitch crosses at the knees we all agree that by the book it meets the definition of a strike.  But if the catcher cannot handle the pitch and either pushes it into the dirt or catches it in the dirt, the perception is the pitch is low and using common sense and fair play, I would call the pitch a ball.  Are you aware this is also how MLB grades with Questec?  The system will say the umpire missed the pitch but MLB will throw that out because they believe the umpire called it correctly.  The higher up you work the stronger catchers are and the closer they get to the plate.  If a catcher doesn't "stick" pitches at the upper levels the pitch is usually going to be called a ball.  Again, I'm not expecting a 14-15 year old kid to have strong enough arms, wrists and hands to be able to stick pitches and I understand some of them are going to be about 3 feet behind the plate because they are afraid of getting hit.  At that level, deal with it and get as many strikes as you can get.  But, when we're calling games streaming on the internet or are on regional and national TV, or have schools video taping from behind the plate and treat every pitch as "life and death" if you call pitches strikes when the catcher doesn't handle them properly, your supervisor is going to be getting a video of the game (if he's not sitting in his living room watching it live) and your future schedules will be impacted because of this.

 

Again, perception is reality.  I'll pose some questions to you...

Would you buy a car simply because it's shiny, clean and good looking without test driving it to see how it runs?

Would you buy a house because it has good curb appeal without having it inspected for hidden problems?

 

I have a feeling you'll answer no to these.  The reason is you want to see everything before making a decision.

 

Would you be pissed off if a police officer pulled you over and wrote you a ticket because you were going 2 MPH over the speed limit?

 

By the book he's within his right to give you a ticket, but most cops use common sense and will not even blink if you are going 2 over.

 

This is how we need to umpire...See everything that can happen and take in all available information before making a decision and enforce rules with common sense and fair play.

[KLAH316]

 

 

 

 

My point is that the mitt has nothing to do with whether the ball was a strike or not.  Catchers frame pitches all the time by pulling the mitt back into the zone.  My focus is always on the plate and that's what I call period.  I used to use the mitt as a piece of reference.  Since i stopped using it I've been far more confident and consistent in my zone.  Balls break differently, come in at different speeds, and have different arcs.  Where it hits the mitt has nothing to do with where it crossed the plate.  If you see it cross the zone you have no reason to use the mitt as any point of reference.

 

 

The mitt does have something to do with whether the ball is a strike or not.  It's called timing.  Timing is defined as the proper use of eyes, which means seeing everything happen before making a decision.  If you are taking a snapshot in your mind of the pitch being a ball or strike as it crosses the plate, you are not seeing everything happen.  A lot can happen between the plate and the glove that can change a pitch from a strike to a ball.

 

See the ball out of the pitcher's hand, through the zone, into the glove and how the catcher catches the pitch.  A pitch is a strike until proven otherwise and at any point along that path it could prove to be a ball.

 

Yes, catchers frame pitches...badly.  That's an automatic ball.

 

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the knees and the catcher catches it in the dirt, it's a ball.

If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the letters and the catcher catches it at the waist, it's a strike.

If a pitch is a ball or 2 off the plate and the catcher gets to it and sticks it, it's a strike.

If a pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back into the center of the plate, it's a ball.

 

Appearance is part of the equation.  You have to see how the catcher catches it and take that into consideration.

 

If appearance didn't matter, we'd all turn our hats around backards and wear shorts.

 

 

Philosophically I understand some of what you are saying.  But you lost me twice:

 

1)  "A lot can happen between the plate and the glove to make a strike a ball."  By rule nothing can happen between the plate and the glove because the ball is no longer in the strike zone.  The strike zone exists above the plate, not behind it.

 

2)  "A pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back to the middle of the plate, it's a ball".  I am stunned that someone with your credentials is advocating taking a pitch that you clearly saw meet the requirements of a strike (any part of the ball passe through any part of the strike zone), and calling it a ball because of something that the catcher did.

 

I'm not saying that a catchers movement never effects my zone.  But I would never look at a pitch feel that I saw it cross the zone and then call it a ball anyway.

 

Well...my response is pretty much a carbon copy of what scrounge has just stated, but since you are questioning someone with my "credentials" I guess I should also respond...

 

Yes, I work at a pretty high level and have a pretty decent resume.  I've achieved all of this by not being a "rule book umpire".  Successful umpires work games using common sense and fair play.  If you feel you must call the zone by the book, then good luck with it.  I hope you have success.  Some of this depends on the level you call.  If you are working youth baseball I'm not advocating to ball pitches because the catcher cannot catch it properly...you'll be there for days trying to get a game over with.  But not one clinic, school or umpire training program will tell you to call the pitch solely based on where it crosses the plate.  You cannot accurately decide on a pitch until you've seen the catcher catch the pitch.  If you are deciding on a pitch when it crosses the plate, you've made your mind up when the ball is about 5 feet in front of the plate.  Obviously you can argue this point and I don't have brain data to prove this, but I evaluate well over 100 umpires a year at the various clinics I instruct at and can tell you this is what we see constantly.

 

The fact remains: perception is reality.  If a pitch crosses at the knees we all agree that by the book it meets the definition of a strike.  But if the catcher cannot handle the pitch and either pushes it into the dirt or catches it in the dirt, the perception is the pitch is low and using common sense and fair play, I would call the pitch a ball.  Are you aware this is also how MLB grades with Questec?  The system will say the umpire missed the pitch but MLB will throw that out because they believe the umpire called it correctly.  The higher up you work the stronger catchers are and the closer they get to the plate.  If a catcher doesn't "stick" pitches at the upper levels the pitch is usually going to be called a ball.  Again, I'm not expecting a 14-15 year old kid to have strong enough arms, wrists and hands to be able to stick pitches and I understand some of them are going to be about 3 feet behind the plate because they are afraid of getting hit.  At that level, deal with it and get as many strikes as you can get.  But, when we're calling games streaming on the internet or are on regional and national TV, or have schools video taping from behind the plate and treat every pitch as "life and death" if you call pitches strikes when the catcher doesn't handle them properly, your supervisor is going to be getting a video of the game (if he's not sitting in his living room watching it live) and your future schedules will be impacted because of this.

 

Again, perception is reality.  I'll pose some questions to you...

Would you buy a car simply because it's shiny, clean and good looking without test driving it to see how it runs?

Would you buy a house because it has good curb appeal without having it inspected for hidden problems?

 

I have a feeling you'll answer no to these.  The reason is you want to see everything before making a decision.

 

Would you be pissed off if a police officer pulled you over and wrote you a ticket because you were going 2 MPH over the speed limit?

 

By the book he's within his right to give you a ticket, but most cops use common sense and will not even blink if you are going 2 over.

 

This is how we need to umpire...See everything that can happen and take in all available information before making a decision and enforce rules with common sense and fair play.

 

Game, Set and Match.......  Very well said!