Texan & HaverDad:
Great posts. However, it is obvious that some insist on doing it their way regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
Pirate Fan:
Does this sound familar. "when any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone." If it does, can we agree that the pitcher's job is to throw that pitch, the hitters job is to hit that pitch and the unpires job is to call that pitch a strike if it is not hit, fouled or swung at and missed?
Can we further agree that if any part of the ball does not pass through any part of the strike zone and it is not hit, fouled or swung at, that it should be called a ball?
Finally, can we further agree that home plate and its demensions defines the strike zone as to "in and out"? To put it another way, if a thrown pitch does not have some part of the baseball pass through some part of the three demensional plate, white and black, it must, to maintain the integrity of the strike zone, be called a ball if it is not hit, fouled or swung at and missed.
If you cannot agree with these statements, then there is nothing further for me to say. If, however, you do agree, IMHO a borderline pitch can be in and out and it can be up and down and that could be a very interesting discussion for another day. But if it is in the smallest measure more than one baseball off the plate, it is not a borderline pitch in and out, it is a ball. The ability to recognize and make that distinction as an umpire consistently and fairly is what we all should be striving to reach and teaching or practicing any other artifice that makes that call inaccurate is to be favoring the hitter over the pitcher or vice versa and has no place in this game.
And if everyody does that, then "that same pitch . . . will" not vary from ump to ump. Just my opinion of course.