...into the strike zone after receiving the pitch, the umpire should automatically call it a ball. In that case it's obvious the catcher thought it was a ball. If he didn't he wouldn't need to attempt to "frame" the pitch. So if he thinks it's a ball, why shouldn't the umpire?

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.

Should the impact really care or see the glove?

_________________

Is "impact" supposed to be "umpire" above?

If so, I would say that if the umpire notices the catcher dragging the ball into the strikezone it makes calling the pitch a no brainer. It's a ball. Calling it a strike is just rewarding the defense for subterfuge.

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.

Yeah, autocorrect.

I get it’s a tough job but the point is to see the ball cross the plate. What happens after that should have no bearing on the call.

_________________

I thought that the "art" of pitch framing was moving the ball back into the strike zone in such a way that the umpire doesn't notice you doing it?

Rick Dempsey had a little presentation on the 'art' of fooling the umpire. It's probably on youtube or somewhere

Yes, see where the ball crosses the plate in that millisecond.

According to Dempsey, JORR's premise is somewhat suspect. You are moving the glove, but you're keeping your arm still and just flicking your wrist with the glove more or less in the strike zone to begin with.

https://youtu.be/v2GliQ_tls0?si=F4e9cjw29jh_rLww

Edited for brevity but ya know.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

If went the opposite way when umpiring on any call where somebody tried to deceive me it would be ugly.

If you really thought it was a strike, why would you need to move the glove at all?

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.

The catcher doesn't think it's a strike, and tries to move his glove in a way that's not detectable by the umpire. If he does it right, the umpire doesn't notice and, therefore, is not in position to react to the movement of the glove.

I don't think anything is perfectly still back there, and there's always some movement. It's the job of the framer to make framing movement look like normal movement.

Correct. So if the umpire does notice it, it should be an automatic ball, right? My main point is that if the pitcher's own teammate who has the same basic view as the umpire doesn't think it's a strike, why should the umpire disagree?

The guy moving the glove is trying to cheat, isn't he?

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.

If you accept the premise that there's always some movement, you can't call balls and strikes based solely on movement. If you did, you would be calling pitches right down the middle balls. I think framing works because the umpire can't distinguish normal movement from framing movement. Also, there's a possibility that the best framers have the same movement every time (the ball is always getting pulled to the center of the plate even when it's basically there already) and are not making a conscious attempt to frame, which would make it even harder to detect.

Maybe. But when a pitcher drops a curve right into the zone and freezes the batter you see the catcher hold his glove in place like he's a statue.

_________________
Communists are just people who are terrible at capitalism.

pitch-framing is about to become completely irrelevant anyway. We are an eyelash away from automated ball and strike calls, at least on a partial basis. 10 years from now, pitch framing is going to seem quaint and old-fashioned.

True, but even then I suspect there's at least some movement in between the time the ball is caught and the freeze takes place.

I would welcome that change. Framing does nothing for me as a fan. I would rather see them just get the call right.

It unduly kept Grandal having a job.