Would you please just call the strike zone in the book?

quote:

Umpires need to simply call the strike zone as it is defined and stay the heck out of the way.

Just read the rulebook and enforce the rules, including the rules pertaining to balls and strikes.

I was appalled at how often the umpires seemed to enforce some bizarre notion of the strike zone--their own. Moreover, this sort of selfish, egocentric behavior is now common even at the HS level. I have seen it change the outcome of games.

So, umpires, I am pleading--don't steal the game from the players--call the strike zone in the book, not your own creative strike zone.

I did not see the game in question, so I can not comment on the way the game was called......There are numerous threads here in the "ask the Umpire" forum which relate directly to your comment on calling the rule book zone......if you care to search and read them....

I am going to take much of my answer from one of those previous posts.... To answer your question, the strike zone is a 17 inch wide column above homeplate that extends from just under the batters letters to the hollow of the knee while in a normal stance.....

Now to the reality of it all....and again I am taking much of this response from a former thread here at HSBBW and I encourage you to search for it as it addresses much about the zone and how it is called. The thread was called "borderline pitches"

But to my answer....I belive that the vast majority of working umpires all try to call the strike zone as described in the rule book. Going back on my training, I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....

Its a condition of my height, my stance, my experience and probably a hundred other factors.......I keep working to refine my zone to fit into the rule book, but truth be told, I probably wont ever get it book rule perfect.....


I hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the childs way out, but I will offer that it isnt as easy as it seems.....But I will guarantee you that I will keep trying to get better.......

Despite all our efforts, I feel there will always be some variance.......but I will try to get better......if at any time I feel I am doing "good enough" and fail to work on refining my game......I will call it a career.......

hope this helps understanding of my point of view....

piaa ump: Now that is a truly superb response and I admire and respect you for explaining it. And I thank you for reminding me about how difficult the task is. I have had the (mis?)fortune to have umpired a few games myself, but I forget how hard this job is.

Now, that said, I took a look at the NCAA 2008 Rulebook. In Rule 2, definitions, it defines the strike zone as follows:

"The area over home plate from the bottom of the kneecaps to the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants. The strike zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at
a pitched ball."

In the UofM vs. Mississippi game, the umpire was calling most of the UofM lefty's pitches strikes even when they were a good 8 inches off the plate. The announcers repeatedly commented on it and said, "Well I'd keep throwing them way out there, too, if he's going to keep calling them out there."

It was terrible. The Mississippi kids were clearly frustrated. They were probably told to "make adjustments" and such, but when they stepped in closer to the plate, the UofM pitcher would just throw a fastball inside corner, or within two inches of the inside corner, and kill them with it. It was an impossible situation for Mississippi. And like I wrote in the original post, this was common in the games this weekend. And what is worse, it has trickled down to the high school level where I saw three or four games this year decided by umpires with this sort of ridiculous strike zone.

I realize that your positioning, your relationship to the plate, etc. all affect how you see pitches. But it seems clear that some umpires go out of their way to stick it to the players just to establish "their" strike zone. It is dishonest and unfair. Yes, yes, I know, you will find dishonesty in all walks of life and life isn't fair and all of that. I agree. But it doesn't mean that in a game, a simple game that is supposed to be fun and rewarding, one man can take over the game, change the rules, and force his ego-driven, obscene strike zone on the players.

Now, I fully respect your original response, and nothing above is intended to be critical of what you wrote. I am certain, knowing many, many umpires, my brother included, that 90% are good, decent, honest, fair, and quality umpires. I guess it is the 10% that will kill us all.

quote:

I hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the childs way out, but I will offer that it isnt as easy as it seems.....But I will guarantee you that I will keep trying to get better.......

Not the child's way out piaa, just an honest statement. And by the way, I'm in your camp.

Back in March I had my right hip replaced due to osteoarthritis. Some time in September the cutter will replace my left hip. Anyway, the surgery caused me to miss the high school season. Yesterday was my first time on the field this year...an American Legion game behind the plate.

Before the game I asked my partner to pay attention to my calls since I now have to use a new stance. For years I worked on one knee behind the plate but can no longer do that because it stresses the hip joints too much. I've heard that dislocating in the third inning is both ugly and slows the game down too much. I now am centered more on the plate while standing with my hands on my knees. The top of the zone as well as inside and outside all seemed to be relatively easy adjustments. My perspective of the bottom of the zone however, was completely different. Truth be told, I heard the groans 4 or 5 times on knee level strike calls that I made. All on breaking pitches. You don't react to the groans but you do hear them.

After the game I talked to my partner and asked him about it. He said the calls weren't really, really bad but since they were breaking pitches they could have been called balls. That is to say, they barely caught the knees on the way down.

OK, obviously I have something to work on. And I will work on it. I could say that a handful of missed pitches in a game doesn't bother me. Well, it does bother me. I hate the notion that either team doesn't think they're getting a fair shake when I'm on the field.

Sorry I forgot to add that I simply can't explain calling a strike on a pitch that is 8 inches off the plate.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

I hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the childs way out, but I will offer that it isnt as easy as it seems.....But I will guarantee you that I will keep trying to get better.......

Not the child's way out piaa, just an honest statement. And by the way, I'm in your camp.

Back in March I had my right hip replaced due to osteoarthritis. Some time in September the cutter will replace my left hip. Anyway, the surgery caused me to miss the high school season. Yesterday was my first time on the field this year...an American Legion game behind the plate.

Before the game I asked my partner to pay attention to my calls since I now have to use a new stance. For years I worked on one knee behind the plate but can no longer do that because it stresses the hip joints too much. I've heard that dislocating in the third inning is both ugly and slows the game down too much. I now am centered more on the plate while standing with my hands on my knees. The top of the zone as well as inside and outside all seemed to be relatively easy adjustments. My perspective of the bottom of the zone however, was completely different. Truth be told, I heard the groans 4 or 5 times on knee level strike calls that I made. All on breaking pitches. You don't react to the groans but you do hear them.

After the game I talked to my partner and asked him about it. He said the calls weren't really, really bad but since they were breaking pitches they could have been called balls. That is to say, they barely caught the knees on the way down.

OK, obviously I have something to work on. And I will work on it. I could say that a handful of missed pitches in a game doesn't bother me. Well, it does bother me. I hate the notion that either team doesn't think they're getting a fair shake when I'm on the field.

Sorry I forgot to add that I simply can't explain calling a strike on a pitch that is 8 inches off the plate.

I'd say your zone got better. Your head is too low calling pitches on one knee (generally causing you to miss low pitches), to say nothing of being unable to bust it down the 1st base line on a ground ball. Groans on pitches that "barely caught the knees on the way down?" Those are strikes, my friend. Keep ringing 'em up.

quote:

Originally posted by isaacvanwart:
So, umpires, I am pleading--don't steal the game from the players--call the strike zone in the book, not your own creative strike zone.

Isaac - Pitch comes in belt high on the black. Do you call that a strike? (The black is NOT part of the plate)

I encourage everyone to use the search feature and search for the thread "borderline Pitches".......its not the "100% clear cut" answer to the zone issue questions, but it features a dynamic dialog about the zone and a has a number of excellent repsonses by many of the umpires who post here and many good contributors from the site........

Thanks, piaa and pilsner.

Dash--I can live with the true borderline call. These pitches in the UofM game and the pitches I am talking about in the HS games were NOT EVEN CLOSE. In these instances, the umpires are stealing the game from the players. They need to stop.

I also didnt see the game but its ironic isaac only complained about pitch calls when Miss was batting, but not when Miami was up. That sounds like he's saying the official was cheating- calls for 1 team and not the other.

How many times have we all experienced biased complaints on our calls? Biased perspective is common from fans in every sport and are ignored by most knowledgable officials.

Now if isaac had said the PU was calling outside pitches as strikes for both teams, well then his arguement might hold more water, but the way he wrote it?......lets see if he responds with "additional" info....

Issac says the Miss batters tried to adjust to no avail. That's all well and good but it sounds like the pitchers didn't. If the batters are complaining the pitch is too far off to be strikes, the pitchers should go out there as well.
Pilsner:
Use the same stance you have gone to, go back in the slot that you usually use and back up a foot. It will take care of the low pitch and you will see the zone better than you used to.

The strike zone is what the umpire calls. It is not the definition in the book. My first thought when reading the OP was that this guy (Isaac) is not an umpire. All umpires know the book definition of the strike zone, but in reality we tend to be liberal with the outside edge of the plate. If you don't give two or three inches off the outside edge of the plate, you are in for a long night.

I believe in the oval shape of the zone -- marginal pitches down and in, down and out, up and out or up and in are balls. Pitches at the belt a ball width outside or inside are strikes. If you are consistent with these calls, you won't hear many complaints.

At the higher levels you must call a tighter zone because the pitchers are expected to be able to pitch to the zone. Eight inches off the plate is way too much, but two inches is not.

Jim Evans told us at a HS Clinic to call pitches 2-3 inches outside a strike and was challenged by a rookie HS umpire who said "How can you do that when the book says differently". Get with reality.

Bottom line -- Know what the book says but establish a reasonable liberal zone and be consistent with it. The batters will be swinging, smart pitchers will adapt and the game will move along nicely. -- At least that has been my experience.

archangel--I believe that the Mississippi pitchers did not possess the control that the UofM pitchers possessed. I suspect that they learned, early on, that the 8 inches off the plate were fair game for strike calls, but they could not master it, so they did not get the calls. The UofM kid, the lefty, was a true master. He hit the same spot over and over with his curveball and the ump gave him the pitch every time.

Michael--I give the Mississippi kids credit. They may have shaken their heads in wonder a few times, but they never argued a call or seemed frustrated. They had great discipline. And again, I think their pitchers tried to hit the spots outside, but just could not do it as well as the UofM kids.

mrumpire--Okay, I will refrain from arguing with you since, as an umpire, what you call a strike is a strike. We all agree that that is correct. But please at least consider the possibility that your entire philosophy is wrong. If you want to call a pitch that is three inches off the plate a strike, then CHANGE THE RULE BOOK! Until the rule book is changed, call a strike a strike and a ball a ball. Why is that so hard? The rookie ump of whom you are so dismissive has it right--call it as it is written. Pitchers can rely on it. Catchers can rely on it. Hitters can rely on it. Coaches can rely on it. Umpires can rely on it. Once you start making up your own ("real") strike zone, chaos ensues. The strike zone is OBJECTIVE. Don't substitute your SUBJECTIVE "truth" or "reality" for what the rulemakers wrote in the book. Abide by it. If you like to call the pitch three inches off the plate a strike, then by all means, work to change the rule book. Until it is changed, call a strike a strike and a ball a ball. And you wonder why people find inconsistency and frustration in umpiring.

quote:

The strike zone is OBJECTIVE. Don't substitute your SUBJECTIVE "truth" or "reality" for what the rulemakers wrote in the book. Abide by it. If you like to call the pitch three inches off the plate a strike, then by all means, work to change the rule book. Until it is changed, call a strike a strike and a ball a ball. And you wonder why people find inconsistency and frustration in umpiring.

The strike zone in the book may be objective.....I understand that the book has to give us the goal .....But, the strike zone out in the field has to be subjective.......and there many variables........

Lets look at the definition (OBR)MLB.com

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

Thats each batters stance........just to be clear, that is at a minimum of 18 different strike zones/ per game for up and down....

Now for a strike- OBR MLB
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike
zone;

Any part of the ball passing through the zone.........subject to the judgment of the umpire.......using this objective rule, could it be that the umpire of the game in question felt that the ball passed through a part of the zone?.......regardless of where it ended up?

300 pitches a game, and it only has to pass through "any part of the zone"........18 different zones and over 300 times.........needs some subjective application by a trained umpire.....

Just my .02

piaa--I understand your position on this, and I agree with you. I have no problem, either, with borderline pitches. That will all even out. My complaint is with the omnipotent approach taken by the umpire who decides that if a pitcher has good enough control to hit consistently a spot 8 inches off the plate, then that pitcher will get the strike call. Maddux lived by this. Glavine lived by this. Okay, they are pros--I'll let the pros sort it out (and the pros have tried to get control of these rogue strike zones). But for amateur baseball, there is a rule. Umpires are tasked to enforce the rules. Once an umpire decides he will call "his" strike zone, the rule go out the door.

Now, not to digress too much, but this is analagous to political systems. We like to think of our nation as one of law rather than of men. In other words, we have laws enacted by our elected representatives. We ask the President or Governor or other executive branch personnel to enforce those laws. If a man decides that he will make his own laws, the system is designed to get him back into the right place. If the system allows him to make his own laws, then every man will think he can make his own laws. We will then not be a nation of law, but of men (to each his own). It will be chaos.

Likewise, if every umpire comes to the game to enforce "his" strike zone, baseball will be chaos. No one will know what the strike zone is because each umpire's is different. And an umpire could change it from day to day, game to game, or even pitch to pitch. It makes no sense.

The rule book is in place to be enforced. Ideas have consequences. Words have meaning. Rules have rationales. Human error, human perception, human inconsistency is one thing. Deliberately creating one's own strike zone is another.

What if:

(1) Every umpire and every sanctioning body simply said, "Okay, here is the strike zone. Enforce this strike zone. Not your own. This one. Anything else and you are shortchanging the game and the players."

(2) And then the umpires did all they could to abide by the written strike zone and the sanctioning bodies actually monitored performance.

Would not everyone benefit--everyone who plays or coaches would KNOW the strike zone. They could anticipate it, make sound decisions based upon it, and play the game according to it. The players, then, would decide the game, not an umpire's individual notion of what a strike is.

What bothers me with umpires zones, especially those that change during a game, is that we as teachers of HS players strive to teach the players patience and confidence at the plate and what is a good pitch to hit and what is not.

The umpires who have an arbitrary zone destroy all this effort on the coaches and players part

quote:

Jim Evans told us at a HS Clinic to call pitches 2-3 inches outside a strike and was challenged by a rookie HS umpire who said "How can you do that when the book says differently". Get with reality.

Jim Evans advises that he does not appear at HS clinics. He presents three day week-end Evans Clinics, five-day "classics", a five week pro-school and several out of country clinics where he works with the local pro umpires. Some of his week-end clinics are sponosred by local umpire associations that may call high school games, but what Jim presents is always pro-based.

Having attended four of the above listed programs, I have never heard Jim say anything but to call the strike zone as written. I have, in fact, heard him warn against improvising a strike zone.

Given all this, I have to believe, at the very least, you misheard or misunderstood his comments. I will be seeing Jim again soon. I'll have to inquire directly about this subject.

That aside, my experience as an evaluator has taught me the the vast majority of experienced umpires who are seen to call outside or low pitches as strikes are not aware they are doing it.

Many times, when I have pointed out to umpires that they are calling strikes outside the zone, they deny it and say to the effect, "I would never call a pitch I saw six inches outside a strike."

When I show them video of such a call, they are shocked. The explanation is usually simple. They did not see the pitch correctly and honestly believed it was within the zone. Most often, I have found, exaggerated strike zones are caused by mechanics or timing problems rather than some nefarious conspiracy to re-invent the strike zone.

When we fix these problems, we see the umpires calling the correct strike zone.

As a home plate umpire I know that my strike zone is pretty consistant but it does change with each batter. One batter may have knees that are higher than another. I think my job is to call strikes (not have a game with walk after walk). I give the corners and the low strike BUT above the hands is NOT a strike. If I have to track the ball and my eyeballs are going up, up, up Its a ball. CALL THE ZONE, CALL STRIKES!

Polo

The zone does not change with each batter--the zone is the same--knees to the letters of each individual

Interesting read in the umpire section of the Babe Ruth League newsletter addressing the strike zone.

https://www.baberuthleague.org/side-indexes/Presidents_.../Hey_Blue_fourth.pdf

quote:

Jim Evans advises that he does not appear at HS clinics. He presents three day week-end Evans Clinics, five-day "classics", a five week pro-school and several out of country clinics where he works with the local pro umpires. Some of his week-end clinics are sponosred by local umpire associations that may call high school games, but what Jim presents is always pro-based.

Having attended four of the above listed programs, I have never heard Jim say anything but to call the strike zone as written. I have, in fact, heard him warn against improvising a strike zone.

I met Jim Evans sometime in the late 90s at Thornton HS in Thornton CO. Colorado had a mandatory "Master Clinic" for all HS umpires held in February or March each year. Joe Brinkman spoke to us one year and Jim Evans also spoke. I did not mishear or misunderstand what was being said.

I'm sure he does not advocate stretching the zone for the pro game but I'm finding it hard to believe that the HS umpires aren't chiming in and admitting they will give that couple of inches off the outside. I've followed discussions on other boards and there is general agreement that when you have a decent catcher that sets up just off the outside edge of the plate and holds the pitch that is a ball's width out that that should be called a strike at this level especially if the pitcher is hitting it consistently.

I know when I miss one and you may be totally correct that my perception of two inches out may be five inches out. I will work on that.

I just gotta disagree that umpires at the HS level on down should not be somewhat liberal when calling pitches that are a little out or a little in. I just don't think in the real world that would work very well.

quote:

Originally posted by isaacvanwart:
I have been watching some of the College Baseball Tournament on ESPNU. For the most part, it has been great baseball. However, the umpires continually get in the way.

Take, for example, the UofMiami vs. Mississippi game. The lefty for UofM threw a curveball that was consistently 6-8 inches outside on the right-handed batter. The ball would cross the plate outside of the chalk line that defines the inside of the left-handed hitter's batter's box. The catcher would catch it about 4 inches off the outside part of the plate. Yet, if the ball did not hit the dirt, it was called a strike. Even the ESPNU announcers were appalled. They commented that the umpire had a "Tom Glavine" strike zone, meaning, of course, that the umpire called a strike on the balls 6-8 inches off the plate. Maddux got the same sorts of calls in his prime.

The result was that the Mississippi hitters begain chasing these balls and even some further out. Essentially, the umpire took the bat out of their hands.

Now, some will say that the Mississippi hitters should have adjusted, or that their pitcher would get the same calls if he could show the umpire that he had mastered that sort of control. But that argument is irrelevant. Does the rule book say: "The strike zone is that zone defined by the umpire on each pitch"? Heck no.

Umpires need to simply call the strike zone as it is defined and stay the heck out of the way. They don't need to insert themselves into the game and prove how knowledgable they are or how important they are. Just read the rulebook and enforce the rules, including the rules pertaining to balls and strikes.

And lest you think that this was an aberration, let me assure you that this was more often the case than not. I was appalled at how often the umpires seemed to enforce some bizarre notion of the strike zone--their own. Moreover, this sort of selfish, egocentric behavior is now common even at the HS level. I have seen it change the outcome of games.

So, umpires, I am pleading--don't steal the game from the players--call the strike zone in the book, not your own creative strike zone.

Amen brother, If part of the ball doesn't cross part of the plate, it's not a strike. I've seen guys on this very forum, come up with all sorts of stupid reasons to call a ball that's too far in or too far out, a strike. If you're an umpire and you call pitches off the plate strikes, you're not doing your job.

It's not your job as an umpire to say, "well this batter is crowding the plate, so I'm going to give the pitcher 4 inches on the outside of the plate.

The ball has to cross over part of the plate to be a strike, if not, I don't care if it's belt high, it's not a strike.

quote:

I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....

I hate to say this, but if you are doing that on purpose it's wrong.

quote:

At the higher levels you must call a tighter zone because the pitchers are expected to be able to pitch to the zone. Eight inches off the plate is way too much, but two inches is not.

So you tell me how a pitched ball that doesn't cross over some part of the plate is a strike?

It's this kind of **** that ticks people off. I don't care if it's one inch outside, if you can see that some part of the ball didn't cross over the plate, it shouldn't be called a strike. We all understand that some pithces will be close and you may call them a strike becasue in your judgment the ball caught some part of the plate, but if you call a ball a strike that you know didn't cross the plate, you're not doing your job.

"long night" so are you advocating screwing the batters so you can get home sooner?

If you would have read his entire post you would have saw he said he was continually trying to improve his zone...he had factors that caused him to call it where he did..he didn't intentionally call them there. Read the whole post before making a comment.

quote:

Originally posted by INshocker:
If you would have read his entire post you would have saw he said he was continually trying to improve his zone...he had factors that caused him to call it where he did..he didn't intentionally call them there. Read the whole post before making a comment.

I read the whole post pal, he said giving a pitcher two inches off the plate was okay, and if you didn't you would be in for along night. Maybe you should practice what you preach pal.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....

I hate to say this, but if you are doing that on purpose it's wrong.

This is what I was talking about...not the second post.

quote:

quote:
I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....


I hate to say this, but if you are doing that on purpose it's wrong.

No, I dont think you did........the whole object of that part of my post was to tell you that at a clinic that I paid to attend, while being observed by a clinician and video taped, that I called the the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.........

its not on purpose, it is just the reality of how I see the pitches.......and the whole expercise was to get better calling the rule book zone........

No one here is advocating gross misses or 8 inches off the plate as acceptable...but even though we will take heat for it, the umpires here on this forum are willing to honestly discuss how it is to call pitches.......

I have said it before and I say it now.........it isnt as easy as it seems........but I will continue to attempt to get better even though I know I will never get rule book perfect.........

I believe that most umpires do their best to call a good zone....it is where we earn our reputation....

But there will always be criticism from those that can not nor would not do the job we do........

Maybe I phrased that incorrectly. If you knowingly call a pitch a strike that you KNOW didn't cross some part of the plate, it's wrong.

Obviously you AREN'T doing that. I said IF YOU WERE, it's wrong.

I umpire as well, I'm not at the level you are as I umpire mostly 7-13 year old ball, but I know how hard it can be, and it makes it even harder when you have umpires that stretch the zone for ANY reason. If it doesn't catch the plate and you KNOW it didn't catch the plate, don't call it a strike. I think and hope you would agree on that.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
The ball has to cross over part of the plate to be a strike, if not, I don't care if it's belt high, it's not a strike.

It is in my game LOL (although certainly not eight inches).

I think you're all missing the point.

Consistency is all that matters.

You establish the strike zone in the first inning. Whatever your belief as to what constitutes a strike doesn't matter. It's what you call in the first, and you have to keep it there for the rest of that game. Calling a "politically incorrect" plate is not inherently unfair to either team, calling an inconsistent plate is. That's why it's a good idea to look at eight pitches before the top of the 1st and eight more before the bottom (instead of BSing with your partner). Start calling balls and strikes to yourself before calling the ones that count the most.

There is such a thing as the spirit of the rule, and the spirit of the strike zone rule is that strikes can be put in play with reasonable effort, balls cannot. Take it from there. This is not the major leagues.

quote:

You establish the strike zone in the first inning. Whatever your belief as to what constitutes a strike doesn't matter. It's what you call in the first, and you have to keep it there for the rest of that game. Calling a "politically incorrect" plate is not inherently unfair to either team

Sure it's unfair, even if you don't change the zone.

For one if you give the pitcher 2-4 inches off the plate, how does the batter compensate for that? What, he stands closer to the plate because the umps giving the pitcher balls off the plate, then the pitcher busts him inside and saws him off.

If it's not over the plate and the ump can see that its not, it should be a ball. The batter shouldn't have to do the two step on every other pitch because some blue that want's to speed things up decided to open it up.

Sure it's good for both pitchers but we have to consider the offensive guys as well. You can't just take them out of the equation and say "well I'm calling it the same way for both pitchers there for it's fair to the batters as well.

There are a couple of postershere that will never agree with anything off the plate being a strike. No matter how many times we have explained that a ball can be off the plate and still catch the corner. Also, a batter standing normally in the box, not crowding, can easily reach that pitch.
Some umpires have a tendecy to tunnel. This where they quit tracking the ball 1 ft or so in front of the plate. This will cause them to call inconsistant strikes. It is not something they do intentionally but is a mechanical error.

My perception of the low strike seems to be lower than many according to other umps. According to batters I'm wide on outside fastballs. However I will not call a wide, low strike. I tell catchers that they may get one or the other but not both.
I personally get more grief from coaches about being too tight wide. Most that I know want you to be 4" off than not. In college they want two balls above the belt. I have one college coach who will give you a fit for anything above the belt. Most will complain about the two balls above.
The point of this long post is each umpire has his own perception of the zone. The zone changes according to the size of batter. You have to call the zone expected at the level you are working. It is a hard job to do and nobody cares how hard we work to improve our abilities. Coaches have little knowledge of where the umpire is actually calling. The lower the level the less the coach will be able to tell because the catcher is not in a proper position. Plus many pull pitches and the coaches don't seem to see it. They only see where it ends up.
This isn't a slam on coaches, just observations from 33 yrs of calling baseball at all levels except pro ball.

quote:

Sure it's unfair, even if you don't change the zone.

For one if you give the pitcher 2-4 inches off the plate, how does the batter compensate for that? What, he stands closer to the plate because the umps giving the pitcher balls off the plate, then the pitcher busts him inside and saws him off.

That's called good pitching.

quote:

So you tell me how a pitched ball that doesn't cross over some part of the plate is a strike?

It's this kind of **** that ticks people off. I don't care if it's one inch outside, if you can see that some part of the ball didn't cross over the plate, it shouldn't be called a strike. We all understand that some pithces will be close and you may call them a strike becasue in your judgment the ball caught some part of the plate, but if you call a ball a strike that you know didn't cross the plate, you're not doing your job.

"long night" so are you advocating screwing the batters so you can get home sooner?

Who does it tick off? The Parents? Umpires know how parents are.

Coaches on both sides want those close pitches called strikes, they want batters swinging.
I've had coaches say "if you don't call that a strike, we are going to be here all night". How many hundreds of times have I heard the coach tell his batter to take that pitch to the opposite field? Nobody wants a walkathon.

It's not about getting home sooner, it's about moving the game along.

It's just unrealistic to believe umpires shouldn't call a liberal strike zone. How liberal depends on the age and ability of the players.

If you don't know this, you need a few years umpiring players who shave and then, just maybe, you will understand.

TRhit
I think you misunderstood...what I said is it will change because the height and size of each batter is different. The zone is the same but the knees may be closer or further away from the ground. Before every batter I make sure I visualize "HIS" strike zone.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
if you give the pitcher 2-4 inches off the plate, how does the batter compensate for that?

He drives it to the opposite field with his nearly 3-foot long bat.

polo

we are on the same page then

dash

Totally incorrect---coaches teach kids the "true strikezone" ---I do not expect our players to swing at those pitches---

You do that in a game we play and our staff and you would have a big problem and a complaint would be lodged

The issue with this debate is not one of judgment – did the pitch touch a corner or the top or bottom of the strike zone. The question is why do some umpires – some very good umpires from posts made to this forum - feel they are entitled to change/expand the rule book strike zone? Is there any other rule that you feel you are allowed to change?

quote:

He drives it to the opposite field with his nearly 3-foot long bat.

So your strike zone is determined in part by bat lenght? Because that's what that ignorant comment indicate. It's that "well, I think he could have hit that pitch" mentality by umpires that ticks people off.

quote:

That's called good pitching.

No it's called the batter getting jerked around by and umpire who thinks he has the authority to call the game by his own set of rules.

There's no difference in calling a batter out on a pitch that you know didn't cross some part of the plate and calling a runner out, knowing the fielder missed the tag or didn't touch the base. If I miss a tag by 1/2", the guy is just as safe as he would be if I had missed the tag by 10'.

If a pitch catches the corner of the plate, it's just as much a strike as a pitch that goes right down the middle. A pitch that is 2 inches outside is just as much a ball as a pitch that is 2' outside.

Oh but I forgot your strike zone is dictated in part by the length of the hitters bat.

quote:

Originally posted by HawksCoach:
The issue with this debate is not one of judgment – did the pitch touch a corner or the top or bottom of the strike zone. The question is why do some umpires – some very good umpires from posts made to this forum - feel they are entitled to change/expand the rule book strike zone? Is there any other rule that you feel you are allowed to change?

Sure. How about this one:

90 mph fastball right at the batter's head. He spins away in an effort to save his life. In so doing, his bat hits the ball foul while one foot is on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. Is he out or is it a foul ball?

quote:

Originally posted by HawksCoach:
The issue with this debate is not one of judgment – did the pitch touch a corner or the top or bottom of the strike zone. The question is why do some umpires – some very good umpires from posts made to this forum - feel they are entitled to change/expand the rule book strike zone? Is there any other rule that you feel you are allowed to change?

and that's my whole point, an umpire who calls a pitch a strike that he KNOWS didn't cross part of the plate, IS WRONG! I'm not talking about calling a pitch a strike that from your vantage point appeard to catch part of the plate. I'm talking about pitches you KNOW didn't cross the plate. Why is that so hard to phathom?