Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc6
With all the equipment, hats and uniforms threads, I think it's time to change things up a bit (pardon the pun). So let's talk about strike zones, specifically working with the catcher.
A lot of umpires say that if the catcher makes a pitch that is in the strike zone look bad (by lunging, pulling the glove, dropping the ball, etc.), they will call that pitch a ball. This begs the question- if during a game you call a strike on 4 pitches that cross the outside corner, but later in the game you call ball on a pitch that crosses that same outside corner because the catcher butchered it, you now have an inconsistent strike zone. How can anybody claim to call a consistent strike zone if they are always changing what a "ball" and a "strike" are according to how the catcher recieves the pitch? I think there is a tradeoff. You either have a consistent zone by calling it where it crosses the plate, or you call the game according to how the catcher presents the pitch, thus costing you consistency.
|
|
The "old" strike zone question
The strike zone is defined as that which is accepted in the leagues we service meaning the strike zone at the modified HS level is NOT the same as the varsity level or Collegiate level.
The BOOK definition does NOT differentiate age groups it is a "blanket" statement. One cannot expect a 7th/8th grader to have the same control as an 18 year old varisy pitcher or a 20-21 yr. old college pitcher.
As far as F2 goes I agree with Bob. I am NOT going to call a pitch a ball (that is a strike) simply because F2 is not doing his job correctly. We need strikes and if F2 cannot play the position we do the best we can.
Yes if F2 is "swatting" at the borderline pitches on or "just off" the corner it is difficult to call them strikes but again it depends upon the age group you are umpiring.
Bottom line as they say in Brooklyn NY "FORGET ABOUT IT" when it comes to F2. if it's a strike call it.
Pete Booth