When Calling the Plate - Announcing Balls?

[stkjock]

Curious about an inconsistent thing I noticed yesterday at a MS game and today watching a SEC playoff game from this past weekend.

 

If you're at the dish, do you let the defensive team know where a pitch missed?  In my experience yesterday, PU would frequently, but not always, indicate with his right hand, if the pitch was up or outside, in the Tx A&M vs Florida game, you could hear PU saying things like "no that's inside" or "that's outside" etc.

Is this just a umpire preference as to whether or not to verbalize the call?

 

TIA for the wisdom. 

[Welpe]

When I first started it was verboten - and the hallmark of a smitty - to say or do anything to indicate pitch location unless we were asked.

I've noticed a trend away from that over the last 10 years or so with umpires indicating the location of a pitch at certain times. I started doing that the past few years on close and important pitches. For example a 3-2 pitch just off the plate will sometimes get a "BALL! Outside!"

So your answer is, yes it is umpire preference. I find if I use it sparingly and at the right times, it helps sell the call. And for me, it is usually on pitches in or out, not high or low.

[noumpere]

Only when needed and only "in" or "out" -- the dugout can see up and down.

[Umpire in Chief]

9 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Only when needed and only "in" or "out" -- the dugout can see up and down.

Agree. 

This goes in the category of what you say will be held against you. If your in the habit of telling where you are calling the pitch, then you miss one, what are you going to say???

[Welpe]

21 minutes ago, Umpire in Chief said:

Agree. 

This goes in the category of what you say will be held against you. If your in the habit of telling where you are calling the pitch, then you miss one, what are you going to say???

"Strike"?

[stkjock]

1 minute ago, Welpe said:

"Strike"?

 

appreciate the insights

[NorthTexasUmp]

I agree with what others said here. I verbalize the close ones but usually only loud enough for the catcher to know. The hand movements should not be done.

[kstrunk]

The hand movements remain the epitome of SCHMITTY!!!! Just say 'NO' to indicating where a pitch is with your hand! It just looks terrible! 

[grayhawk]

I only use "Ball, that's in" or "Ball, that's out" when I am answering a question before it gets asked, which means on pitches that were close but missed.  As a result, I rarely get asked about pitch location.

[umpstu]

And if it's a ball I will never change the volume of my call, no matter what the importance of the call.  If it's that close that you feel you have to be louder when selling a ball, then call it a strike.  Way easier to sell the close one as a strike.

[kylehutson]

Why not use the hand? I find myself indicating if a ball was inside or outside maybe 3-4 times/game. I've always used my hand to indicate that and this is the first time I'm seeing that it's considered "unprofessional" - so why is that?

[grayhawk]

16 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

Why not use the hand? I find myself indicating if a ball was inside or outside maybe 3-4 times/game. I've always used my hand to indicate that and this is the first time I'm seeing that it's considered "unprofessional" - so why is that?

Because hand movement is associated with a strike call, not a ball call.

[kylehutson]

3 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Because hand movement is associated with a strike call, not a ball call.

I really doubt anybody would have any confusion with a simultaneous loud "strike!" with a hammer. And a "Ball! (pause about a second) (hand movement below the waist)".

[grayhawk]

3 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

I really doubt anybody would have any confusion with a simultaneous loud "strike!" with a hammer. And a "Ball! (pause about a second) (hand movement below the waist)".

Hey, you asked.  Consider that you never see MLB or NCAA D1 umpires (the ones you see most on TV) give pitch location with their hands.  If they don't do it, then why should we?

[stkjock]

13 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

I really doubt anybody would have any confusion with a simultaneous loud "strike!" with a hammer. And a "Ball! (pause about a second) (hand movement below the waist)".

based on how the guy did it last night, there was no confusion on this mechanic.

 

on his call of a pop-up at the plate on the other hand.....  gave a safe signal when the ball dropped with no other indication, everyone but PU thought it was a fair ball.... 

[kylehutson]

1 minute ago, grayhawk said:

Hey, you asked.  Consider that you never see MLB or NCAA D1 umpires (the ones you see most on TV) give pitch location with their hands.  If they don't do it, then why should we?

I did ask. The answer just seemed odd to me. You wouldn't say "hand movement is associated with an out, not safe".

The MLB and D1 umpires on TV also have catchers that (1) actually catch, and (2) can let the coach know exactly where your zone is and whether or not the pitch hit the mark. Even the better high schools, the coach will ask the catcher where it was rather than the catcher telling the coach pro-actively.

[Replacematt]

4 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

The MLB and D1 umpires on TV also have catchers that (1) actually catch, and (2) can let the coach know exactly where your zone is and whether or not the pitch hit the mark. Even the better high schools, the coach will ask the catcher where it was rather than the catcher telling the coach pro-actively.

Huh?

[kylehutson]

 

Just now, Matt said:

Huh?

I'm saying those guys don't have to indicate whether a ball missed and where.

I don't indicate it often, just when I can "feel" that the coach is about to explode that he thought his pitcher hit his mark.

[Replacematt]

Just now, kylehutson said:

 

I'm saying those guys don't have to indicate whether a ball missed and where.

Umm...yes, it does happen--without hand motions.

[MadMax]

Vocalizing it is one thing, and should be succinct, brief and at a volume that only the pertinent parties need to hear (battery and a dugout coach paying attention). Demonstrating (or indicating) where it missed, via a hand gesture, should not be done. 

@MidAmUmp had advice about how he (and other umpires) convey pitch-miss location, and it was quite subtle, yet effective. @noumpere has it right – we're umpires, not color commentators. Too many amateur umpires think they have to audibly justify their call, and of those that do so, those that gesture think they're either A) the center of attention or B) helping move the game along and mitigate points of contention ("I showed them where he's missing! They have no reason to complain and contest my calls!").

Calling of "Ball!" should absolutely be done, especially by umpire novices. It aids in reinforcing timing and deliberation. As more experience is gained, the call of "Ball" can vary (or be dropped for obvious pitches outside the zone) in intensity or volume as the pitch is closer and closer to being a strike. If you've got a borderline, just off the black inside pitch that gets spectators going, "Oooooh" and the batter sucks in his breath in hopes of not being rung up, it's quite effective to bark, "Ball!" with conviction and volume.

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Vocalizing it is one thing, and should be succinct, brief and at a volume that only the pertinent parties need to hear (battery and a dugout coach paying attention). Demonstrating (or indicating) where it missed, via a hand gesture, should not be done. 

@MidAmUmp had advice about how he (and other umpires) convey pitch-miss location, and it was quite subtle, yet effective. @noumpere has it right – we're umpires, not color commentators. Too many amateur umpires think they have to audibly justify their call, and of those that do so, those that gesture think they're either A) the center of attention or B) helping move the game along and mitigate points of contention ("I showed them where he's missing! They have no reason to complain and contest my calls!").

Calling of "Ball!" should absolutely be done, especially by umpire novices. It aids in reinforcing timing and deliberation. As more experience is gained, the call of "Ball" can vary (or be dropped for obvious pitches outside the zone) in intensity or volume as the pitch is closer and closer to being a strike. If you've got a borderline, just off the black inside pitch that gets spectators going, "Oooooh" and the batter sucks in his breath in hopes of not being rung up, it's quite effective to call it a strike.

FIFY.

[udbrky]

Where did @MidAmUmp share this?

[umpstu]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Because hand movement is associated with a strike call, not a ball call.

It also looks like the umpire is unsure of his call, imo.

[umpstu]

2 hours ago, kylehutson said:

I did ask. The answer just seemed odd to me. You wouldn't say "hand movement is associated with an out, not safe".

The MLB and D1 umpires on TV also have catchers that (1) actually catch, and (2) can let the coach know exactly where your zone is and whether or not the pitch hit the mark. Even the better high schools, the coach will ask the catcher where it was rather than the catcher telling the coach pro-actively.

Let the catcher know what to tell the coach.

[umpstu]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

Vocalizing it is one thing, and should be succinct, brief and at a volume that only the pertinent parties need to hear (battery and a dugout coach paying attention). Demonstrating (or indicating) where it missed, via a hand gesture, should not be done. 

@MidAmUmp had advice about how he (and other umpires) convey pitch-miss location, and it was quite subtle, yet effective. @noumpere has it right – we're umpires, not color commentators. Too many amateur umpires think they have to audibly justify their call, and of those that do so, those that gesture think they're either A) the center of attention or B) helping move the game along and mitigate points of contention ("I showed them where he's missing! They have no reason to complain and contest my calls!").

Calling of "Ball!" should absolutely be done, especially by umpire novices. It aids in reinforcing timing and deliberation. As more experience is gained, the call of "Ball" can vary (or be dropped for obvious pitches outside the zone) in intensity or volume as the pitch is closer and closer to being a strike. If you've got a borderline, just off the black inside pitch that gets spectators going, "Oooooh" and the batter sucks in his breath in hopes of not being rung up, it's quite effective to bark, "Ball!" with conviction and volume.

I disagree on being loud with the inside ball.  Why not just say, ball, inside?  If the batter sucks in his breath he gets a strike.

[noumpere]

11 minutes ago, umpstu said:

I disagree on being loud with the inside ball.  Why not just say, ball, inside?  If the batter sucks in his breath he gets a strike.

It's louder than the obvious ball call.  It's not as loud as the obvious strike call.  It's also just a tad quicker than normal.  All convey the certainty without appearing to over sell it.  It's all an art, and some paint differently than others.