Path of Least Resistance

In my previous blog post, The Third Dimension, I talked about how some umpires will move the strike zone depending on where the batter stands in the box, supposedly because this could result in the perception, among the bench jockeys, of more accurate calls.  I don't buy it, but it does lead to the question of whether we should let the perception of others affect our calls.

We've all done it to some extent, I believe.  For example, at the youngest levels we know to expand the strike zone horizontally, not vertically.  Why?  Because the coaches, the players on the bench, and the parents in the stands can all see that a pitch is too high or too low, but rarely can tell if it's four inches off the plate outside.  We take the "path of least resistance."

From the clinics and training sessions I've attended, this is not an uncommon notion.  But there may only be a fine line between trying to get the call right and trying to avoid an argument.  In most cases, these are one in the same – the right call gets the least grief.  But that's not always the case.  As the senior umpire leading my latest clinic said, "If you look for trouble, trouble will find you."  And he isn't wrong.

I have two examples that have happened to me, and incidentally, both of them were on plays at the plate in two different games among middle school boys.

In the first play, a throw to the plate beat the runner and the catcher was properly positioned in front of the plate, but as he turned to make the tag about waist high, the runner dipsy-doodled his body and somehow managed to avoid the tag as he slid.  I was right on top of it and could clearly see that he missed the tag, so I called the runner safe.  Immediately, the manager of the defensive team jumped onto the field to argue.  I knew that there was no way he could see that the tag was missed, and almost everyone else at the field probably thought the runner was out.  Thankfully, the catcher's father had a great view from behind the backstop and later told the manager that I got the call right.

In the second play, a throw to the plate beat the runner by an even greater margin.  But in this case, the runner was ready to give himself up and slowed to a jog, expecting to be tagged out easily.  Meanwhile, the catcher stood behind the plate and held the ball in his mitt directly above the plate, about chest high, and just waited for the runner.  Everyone on the field expected an out call at any moment.  But, as the runner continued to slowly approach the plate, and the catcher never reached for him with the glove, the runner realized he could probably avoid the glove and he reached with his foot to touch the plate.  Only a split second later, his momentum carried his torso into the tag, and I called him safe.  Again, I heard an earful from the defensive manager.

Assuming my eyesight didn't trick me in either case, I was right, by the rules, to call both runners safe.  In both cases, I was in the best position to see the plays, and so I could see something that hardly anyone else at the field could see.  But in hindsight, I don't view these two plays the same way; I feel comfortable with my call in the first example, but not in the second.  In the second play, I should probably have just accepted that the ball beat the runner by a large margin, the runner was giving himself up (until the very last second), and so I should have just called the runner out.  If I had, there would have been no complaints, I'm sure.

It wouldn't be the first time an umpire didn't call everything he saw.  In the old days, before video replay, umpires were expected to ignore when a middle infielder failed to touch second base on a DP attempt, even when they could clearly see it.  This was the "neighborhood play," which protected the safety of the infielder to some extent.  Maybe, when a runner coming home is clearly giving himself up, and both he and the catcher are just trying to stay safe, I should just call the "neighborly play" and call the runner out.  I was probably "looking for trouble" when I should have just traveled along the "path of least resistance."

What are your thoughts?