Balls and Strikes

If the catcher has to move his mitt to catch the ball then it is a ball!! This is the comment I got from two umpires this past weekend in reference to my question about a few pitch locations. I completely understand the pitch is a ball if the catcher sets up inside and the pitch hits the outside corner. My question refers to pitches that are strikes as they pass the batter and are received in the area to which the catcher is set up. Yes, he did have to move his mitt slightly (inch or two) to catch the ball.

The strike zone is small enough without umpires making decisions based on where the catcher receives the pitch. I expect there is an umpiring group that is teaching this in North Carolina. I have seen the problem in a certain NC region within USSSA. It's no wonder that every game this weekend was shortened because of the time limit (2 hours). These were very experienced "Showcase" pitchers that have good control.

Any comment(s)??

 

There is a set strike zone area above home plate

The pitch is a strike if it passes thru any part of the strike zone PERIOD. Of course it is better to have good catchers so that strikes don't end up looking like balls.

 

I totally agree. Our catcher was setting up inside, outside, etc. The umpire stated that if he moved his mitt is was a ball. Again, I understand that you will not get a called strike if the catcher is set up inside and the pitch is outside. The pitches were received on the same side of the plate that the catcher was set up. Several teams were complaining about the questionable concept of the strike zone.

This is the second time (different umpiring crew) that the comment was made that "it's a ball if the catcher moves his mitt". Just wondering if this is being taught now. It sure makes for a long weekend of baseball.

 

HUH? What you described is a strike. Period.

 

If its a strike its a strike

Now on those borderline pitches the catcher can lose strike calls by making them look like balls. Even though it may actually be a strike, by improperly recieveing the baseball it can appear to be a ball to the umpire. Just because you set up for an inside pitch and the pitcher hits the outter half or outside corner this does not in itself make it a ball. But if the catcher does not get over there in the proper manner and handle the pitch it can appear to be a ball even though its a strike.

The bottom line is if its a strike its a strike. If its a strike and you make it appear to be a ball then thats another story.

For any umpire to see a strike but call it a ball is ridiculous. The fact the pitcher missed his spot means nothing if the umpire sees a strike he should call it a strike. If the catcher is making strikes look like balls then the umpire calls what he sees - a ball.

If what is happening is the umpires are calling strikes balls because the pitcher missed his spot but is still throwing a strike that is outrageous imo.

 

That is exactly my point. The umpire said if he had to move the mitt it was a ball. This is the second tournament in the past year that "missing the spot" or "moving the mitt" was used as a reason for a ball. This was not a reason to lose as all teams received the same strike zone. Everyone was upset and did not understand the reasoning. From our viewpoint behind the plate, the catcher set up correctly, but moved his mitt slightly to receive the pitch. It was not a situation where the catcher set up poorly. The umpire was consistently poor for all teams with several strikes called balls for the reasons mentioned previously.

Like I said before, this is the second time an umpiring crew from this region in USSSA has given that explanation of the strike zone. No mention of where the ball passes the batter over the plate. My question is do the umpires go through some type of training on a regular basis?? I've never heard of umpires using this explanation of a strike zone.

 

Rec guys with Chinese made blue shirts

HATE to say this but the guys you are talking about are weekend umpires and not real umpires!!!!

 

Good point!!

 

With this remark you have heard from one of three of the best around! Lets hear from PunchedOut and UR Out, which happen to be two of the best I have had the pleasure??? of being around! These three are the DALAI LAMAS of umpires!

 

OK, OK, if you want me to chime in on that one.....And thanks a lot Philly Dave, the check is in the mail. If a catcher is set up a few inches, lets say a ball off the inside or a ball and a half off the outside, and the pitcher hits the mitt..... and then the catcher "sticks" that pitch, someone now has a strike on them. If the catcher "sticks" the bottom pitch, he now has strike two. If the catcher catches the ball and lets it go down, up, left or right, we might have a different story there. I prefer to think of the strike zone much the same way a golfer thinks of the green. TO ME, THE CATCHER HAS MORE OF AN INFLUENCE ON THE "FRINGE PITCHES" THAN THE ACTUAL FLIGHT OF THE BALL. A great catcher can make a lot of a"average" pitchers look very very good. But I should say that a ball crossing the plate below the mid-point from the batters sholders to his belt, and above the hollow beneath the knee is a strike....unless Braves is pitching, we all know that if he tries to pick the runner off first base, it should be called a strike, but again, we all knew that.