Quote:
Originally Posted by tballump
Thanks for the pictures for the young guys. Now, would most people on this forum believe it is OK to expand the the inside and outside pitch to include the black part of the plate? I believe that would expand the zone in the pictures 1 inch on both sides. In other words, if "any" part of the ball hits "any" part of the "black" on either side, it would be called a strike. Although, by definition this is incorrect, would this come under the category of having too wide (liberal) a strike zone, and would it be acceptable to call this pitch a strike at all levels of play, including MLB with or without questec?
|
The black
is part of the plate (as far as we are concerned) and if the ball appears to scrape it on the way by, it's a strike, with no qualms. It is not too wide a zone, in fact, it's expected to be called.
The black of the plate
is the gray area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
Sorry, I'm old school. I don't care about the hitters either. In fact, I don't like rats, period. Plus, as I said, you get your a$s handed to you here for calling them too high. "Get it down, Blue!" is a common phrase in the highly competitive atmosphere here. Nobody likes the high zone, nobody wants it called, from the commissioner's office on down. It's not how we roll. At least not through the 2005 season, which is the latest I can comment about. The old "belly button to the bottom of the knee with a wide corner" is still the preferred zone around these parts. Call high strikes and wind up scratched by the top schools.
|
As for Southern California so far at the non NCAA level, Steve is absolutely right. You call the letters, and you will be getting all your fun at some of the better Monday and Wednesday games.