[canadaump6]

I agree that he probably was not fooled, but rather saw that the catcher's glove move 17 inches to the other side of the plate, and that is why he decided to "ball" the pitch. My problem with such a practice is that it is hard enough to call a consistent strikezone regardless of how the catcher catches it. Now add in the variable of how the catcher catches the ball, along with where the ball was, and things could get pretty variable and subjective. What used to be a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not" now becomes a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not, how did the catcher catch it, now combine both those variables and come up with a decision as to whether it is a ball or strike". I can't imagine anyone being able to combine both those variables and still call a consistent game. That is why I don't pay too much attention to the catcher, unless of course he makes one really ugly looking lunge at a pitch that was a tad off the plate anyways.