Warning

[umpire_scott]

I feel like I handled this situation appropriately but given that it was a player and not a coach I wonder if some would have ejected.  3-0 count pitch comes in on the outside corner right at the top of the zone.  Batter drops his bad and starts to first as I'm calling "strike".  As batter gets set for the next pitch he says very audibly "The reason I started to first base is because that pitch was a ball".  I call "time".  I get the batters attention and I say "If you do that again you will be ejected.  We are not arguing balls and strikes and we are not commenting on them either. Understand?"  He says "yes".  To his credit after the next pitch he turned to me and said "sorry blue I was out of line".  I said "hey no problem it happens".  He additionally came up to me after the game and apologized.  Coach also came to me between innings and asked what his player said.  I told him and he was cool with the warning as well.

On a side note after the game my partner and I were talking (I had never worked with this guy before) and he says the kid asked him if he thought it was a strike.  My partner said he replied that it was a borderline pitch that was at the top of the zone, maybe a little high, but that on 3-0 you should expect that to be called a strike.  What are your thoughts on that response from a partner?  I generally find a way to deflect any suggestion that I thought a pitch could have been called a ball.  If I clearly thought it was a strike I'll emphatically back my partner.  And if I thought it was at all questionable I find a way to say that I didn't get a good look at it.

[scrounge]

You and your partner talk way, way too much. And no, I wouldn't eject just for that.

[Replacematt]

What he said. Also, unless there's been issues with this before this incident, I'm probably ignoring the comment unless he's visibly confronting me. Since you said you had to get his attention, it doesn't sound like that was the case. 

[udbrky]

At the most, all I'm saying to someone is "I don't have a good look from here as to where the ball crossed the plate."

[noumpere]

it doesn't even deserve the formal "arguing balls and strikes" warning.  You can address the comment without calling "time" and without "getting the batter's attention."

[NCAAump2]

I would definitely not eject for that, and honestly I probably wouldn't acknowledge him saying anything.  As for the kid asking your partner what he thought, I'd probably say something along the lines of "I don't know, he had a much better look than I did."

[MadMax]

Batter: Batter drops his bad [sic] and starts to first as I'm calling "strike".  As batter gets set for the next pitch he says very audibly "The reason I started to first base is because that pitch was a ball".

PU (Me): Without stopping action, or even taking off my mask, I reply, "That's nice, it wasn't."

Later...

Batter: "Hey Blue (BU), was that a strike?"

BU (Me): "Sure."

Why complicate things? Why call Time and stop all the action? Why scrutinize everything – during game and after game – and perceive it as a challenge to authority?

[jjb]

First, I hope your happy you didn't EJ him; you got your point across, he apologized, he's still in the game, win-win.

Second, my usual response to someone asking about a pitch when I'm the BU is; "if I could see the zone from here as well as he can see it from there, I could save a lot on money on equipment".

[udbrky]

On 6/26/2016 at 9:03 PM, umpire_scott said:

I feel like I handled this situation appropriately but given that it was a player and not a coach I wonder if some would have ejected.  3-0 count pitch comes in on the outside corner right at the top of the zone.  Batter drops his bad and starts to first as I'm calling "strike".  As batter gets set for the next pitch he says very audibly "The reason I started to first base is because that pitch was a ball".  I call "time".  I get the batters attention and I say "If you do that again you will be ejected.  We are not arguing balls and strikes and we are not commenting on them either. Understand?"  He says "yes".  To his credit after the next pitch he turned to me and said "sorry blue I was out of line".  I said "hey no problem it happens".  He additionally came up to me after the game and apologized.  Coach also came to me between innings and asked what his player said.  I told him and he was cool with the warning as well.

On a side note after the game my partner and I were talking (I had never worked with this guy before) and he says the kid asked him if he thought it was a strike.  My partner said he replied that it was a borderline pitch that was at the top of the zone, maybe a little high, but that on 3-0 you should expect that to be called a strike.  What are your thoughts on that response from a partner?  I generally find a way to deflect any suggestion that I thought a pitch could have been called a ball.  If I clearly thought it was a strike I'll emphatically back my partner.  And if I thought it was at all questionable I find a way to say that I didn't get a good look at it.

I don't like this at all. It's like if you play poker, and you raise your good hands only, and call with any other hand you're going to play. Everyone's going to know when you have a good hand, no matter how much attention they're paying.

 

Do the same thing every time - have a merged range, vs a polarized range, otherwise they'll know you didn't agree with the call and are finding a "cute" way of not saying it.

[MadMax]

Why even have a range at all, @udbrky? I'm with you in your dislike of having some kind of litmus test -esque scale of the strike-ishness or ball-iness of a pitch. If I'm BU and the PU calls it a strike, then that's what it is. If annnnnybodddddy else in the park was to ask me "Was that a strike?", I'd answer "Yup!"... "Really?," they'd press, "even from here, you thought that was a strike?" "Doesn't matter. He's (PU) got it as a strike."

Now, if that PU was to ask me after the game, "Whaddiya think, was that a strike?"... "Which one?," I'd reply. "You know, that one... that the catcher had to reach behind the batter to catch." "Oh! Yeah... Huh. I think you called it kinda quick", I'd say, "but didn't that kid walk anyway?" ... "Yeah."... "Hm... Well, where's the nearest restaurant?"

The only time I ever even give a hint of a questioning look is when I'm in B or C and my PU balls one that could have been a strike. Once is perhaps a miss. A second one brings a very slight, disdained look on my face that asks, "Do you really want us to be here all afternoon???"

[umpire_scott]

I guess my reaction and feelings on the matter stem from the fact that I don't ever recall a player ever telling me "that was a ball".  I've heard "you're kidding me", and sighs that indicate what they thought of a pitch.  But that is the first time I've ever had a player just say "that was a ball".  I just found it very arrogantly disrespectful.  Maybe it was the teacher side of me coming out and not allowing students to disrespect me in the classroom as it sets a very bad tone.

[umpire_scott]

1 hour ago, udbrky said:

I don't like this at all. It's like if you play poker, and you raise your good hands only, and call with any other hand you're going to play. Everyone's going to know when you have a good hand, no matter how much attention they're paying.

 

Do the same thing every time - have a merged range, vs a polarized range, otherwise they'll know you didn't agree with the call and are finding a "cute" way of not saying it.

I see your point if it was something that happened with any regularity.  But the chances of the same coach or player asking me twice what I thought of my partner's strike call is about equal to my chances of winning the lottery.

[udbrky]

6 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Why even have a range at all, @udbrky? I'm with you in your dislike of having some kind of litmus test -esque scale of the strike-ishness or ball-iness of a pitch. If I'm BU and the PU calls it a strike, then that's what it is. If annnnnybodddddy else in the park was to ask me "Was that a strike?", I'd answer "Yup!"... "Really?," they'd press, "even from here, you thought that was a strike?" "Doesn't matter. He's (PU) got it as a strike."

Now, if that PU was to ask me after the game, "Whaddiya think, was that a strike?"... "Which one?," I'd reply. "You know, that one... that the catcher had to reach behind the batter to catch." "Oh! Yeah... Huh. I think you called it kinda quick", I'd say, "but didn't that kid walk anyway?" ... "Yeah."... "Hm... Well, where's the nearest restaurant?"

The only time I ever even give a hint of a questioning look is when I'm in B or C and my PU balls one that could have been a strike. Once is perhaps a miss. A second one brings a very slight, disdained look on my face that asks, "Do you really want us to be here all afternoon???"

A merged range is more of a non-range. It means that for an action that you perform, it is not dependent on a range - here, it would be, whether you thought it was a great call, a borderline call, or you think he kicked it, you give the same response to each question.

A polarized would mean you would say something like "I didn't see it" if you thought he kicked it/thought it was a good call, and gave another response for borderline.

If you use a different response, depending on what you thought of the call, people will notice. Why give them any ammo to push further. I hope you are good at giving a blank stare and not having a reaction when they follow up with "yeah, I thought you thought he missed it too"

[umpire_scott]

1 hour ago, udbrky said:

A merged range is more of a non-range. It means that for an action that you perform, it is not dependent on a range - here, it would be, whether you thought it was a great call, a borderline call, or you think he kicked it, you give the same response to each question.

A polarized would mean you would say something like "I didn't see it" if you thought he kicked it/thought it was a good call, and gave another response for borderline.

If you use a different response, depending on what you thought of the call, people will notice. Why give them any ammo to push further. I hope you are good at giving a blank stare and not having a reaction when they follow up with "yeah, I thought you thought he missed it too"

How often does this really happen that someone asks about your partner's ball or strike call?  I think it might happen to me twice a year, or less.  How are people going to notice? Like I said in general I see your point.  But most calls on the bases are one umpires responsibility and the other one should be looking somewhere else.  So I almost always just say that was his call I had "fill in the blank".  I never say I agree with the call because if I was looking at the same thing my partner was looking at then I wouldn't be doing my job. But on the pitch I have to be looking at the plate area for a check swing.

[udbrky]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

1. Ugh, I can't get rid of this box!

I don't see a reason to use two responses. I guarantee there's someone that is going to pick up on it. Maybe I've just trained myself to look at that more than the average person, but it just opens up an opportunity. Either emphatically back your partner up, or just say something like "if I can make that call from here, don't you think we'd make all calls from the field?"

 

So a couple weeks ago, the one team wanted me to go to my partner for help. He without me asking for assistance, says "I thought he got it right" loud enough for the whole field to hear.

Prima facie, it sounds great. My partner just gave my call an endorsement. My first reaction was:

"So what now if in another spot, he doesn't do this? Anyone that saw this play is going to go 'oh, he didn't agree this time! Let's try to force an appeal!' "

I really wasn't too pleased that he did it. I guarantee I'm not the only one thinking it. It's like when someone wants you to comment on a call in a different game. I always say "I didn't see it, I can't make a comment on it." It just saves headaches.

[umpire_scott]

43 minutes ago, udbrky said:

I don't see a reason to use two responses. I guarantee there's someone that is going to pick up on it. Maybe I've just trained myself to look at that more than the average person, but it just opens up an opportunity. Either emphatically back your partner up, or just say something like "if I can make that call from here, don't you think we'd make all calls from the field?"

 

So a couple weeks ago, the one team wanted me to go to my partner for help. He without me asking for assistance, says "I thought he got it right" loud enough for the whole field to hear.

Prima facie, it sounds great. My partner just gave my call an endorsement. My first reaction was:

"So what now if in another spot, he doesn't do this? Anyone that saw this play is going to go 'oh, he didn't agree this time! Let's try to force an appeal!' "

I really wasn't too pleased that he did it. I guarantee I'm not the only one thinking it. It's like when someone wants you to comment on a call in a different game. I always say "I didn't see it, I can't make a comment on it." It just saves headaches.

I totally agree with this.  I've had multiple times in the same inning let alone the same game where the coaches have asked for appeals.  I would never verbally yell out something like that for that exact reason.  My partner and I always get together to discuss.

[Replacematt]

Silence cannot be misquoted.

[MooseLoop]

On 7/2/2016 at 3:53 PM, udbrky said:

I don't see a reason to use two responses. I guarantee there's someone that is going to pick up on it. Maybe I've just trained myself to look at that more than the average person, but it just opens up an opportunity. Either emphatically back your partner up, or just say something like "if I can make that call from here, don't you think we'd make all calls from the field?"

 

So a couple weeks ago, the one team wanted me to go to my partner for help. He without me asking for assistance, says "I thought he got it right" loud enough for the whole field to hear.

Prima facie, it sounds great. My partner just gave my call an endorsement. My first reaction was:

"So what now if in another spot, he doesn't do this? Anyone that saw this play is going to go 'oh, he didn't agree this time! Let's try to force an appeal!' "

I really wasn't too pleased that he did it. I guarantee I'm not the only one thinking it. It's like when someone wants you to comment on a call in a d

ifferent game. I always say "I didn't see it, I can't make a comment on it." It just saves headaches.

Yeah, it's like the court hearing where wife's attorney is trying to prove adultery as grounds for a divorce:

Lawyer: Isn't it true that you had sexual relations with Mr. Jones in Miami?

Witness: No!

Lawyer: Isn't it true you had sexual relations with Mr. Jones in Atlanta?

Witness: No, that's not true!

Lawyer: Isn't it true you had sexual relations with Mr. Jones in New Orleans?

Witness: I refuse to answer that question!

[udbrky]

I think what they were saying is, it's fine to read old threads, but maybe don't comment off-topic or +1 type things, only if there's something unique to add or ask.