[AtlUmpSteve]

It is very possible for a pitch with arc to cross a point at the knees at the front of the plate, and then hit the plate. And, contrary to what has been suggested by other posters, if a ball had enough arc to hit the knees at the front of the plate, crossed the corner, and landed NEXT TO THE PLATE without traveling all 40', it is by definition a strike, and can and should be called one.

So, why isn't it a strike? More than several years ago I posed that question relative to ASA slow pitch to Merle Butler (then National Director of Umpires for ASA) and Henry Pollard (then National Deputy Director of Umpires). It was IMMEDIATELY conceded that, without that added statement, a pitch absolutely could cross the strike zone and hit the plate. The reason ASA adopted the "cannot hit the plate" rule in slow pitch was to create a higher level of consistency in umpires calling balls and strikes; they basically "dummied down" the rule, since so many umpires really weren't effectively judging the arc in slow pitch. At least this way, they made the front of the zone consistent throughout the country.

ASA Fast pitch added the same phrase. While still physically possible to have a strike hit the plate, if it isn't a strike in slow pitch (pitching with an arc), it shouldn't be a strike in fast pitch. That's the philosophy.

For many years (WMB could possibly define the time; I believe just within the past few years, actually) NFHS did NOT have that language in fast pitch. Never treated as a rule change, I believe it was added as an editorial change without fanfare, possibly 2002'ish. But, it follows the mainstream thought process; not a strike in slow pitch to create a consistent point, not a strike in fast pitch because it isn't a strike in slow pitch.