"New" High Strike Zone

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by senior
Warren:
I don't have a problem calling most parts of the game by the book. Except for the ignoring of the Strike Zone rule, I believe most Umpires follow the book pretty well. I'm not a rules nut, but my games tend to be played "according to the rules".
I'm intrigued by your examples, and wonder if we also have Australian Rules Baseball, as well as Football. (grin)
1) In my games, F3,F4,F5, and F6 better line up in infield positions, or there would be so many bunts there never would be an infield fly.
2) In my games, whether the ball beat the runner or vice-versa, has a definite effect on safe or out calls.
3) In my games, a force-out is achieved by the fielder touching the base with the ball in his possession, before the runner touches it. If the runner slides by, shame on him.
My original aim was to generate interest in giving the Pitcher back his top half of the Strike Zone. I'd settle for the rest of the game staying the same. (grin)

Oh, no senior. This isn't "Australian rules baseball" I'm talking about. My examples were deliberately chosen to show the folly of believing the "book" is what even you are calling. For example:

1. According to OBR 1.04, the "infield" is a 90 foot square! Now both you and I know that we don't insist on F3, F4, F5 and F6 being INSIDE that square when the ball is pitched in order to consider them "infielders" for purpose of the Infield Fly rule. The point is THAT is what the "book" actually says is required. [see OBR 2.00 Infielder, Infield Fly]

2. There are at least 4 circumstances in the rule book where the umpire must decide SAFE/OUT on action at a base. The way the rules are actually written, 2 of those require any perceived "tie" to go to the fielder and 2 require any perceived "tie" to go to the runner. For the sake of our sanity, and under the current professional interpretation, we usually give the tie to the fielder but I assure you that is NOT what the "book" actually says.

3. Unless you've been living like an umpiring hermit for the last several years, you should also have come across the concept of Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action. This requires that once a runner "reaches" a force base without touching it, if he is in the act of scrambling back to the base from the immediate vicinity, he must be TAGGED for the out. The force is effectively removed by the runner reaching the base so simply tagging the base is NOT enough for an out!

The problem we have here, senior, is that what you THINK is the game that you say you are happy to have "stay the same" may NOT actually be the game the rest of us are calling! These are basic tenets at all levels of baseball as it is called today, in the USA and even in Australia. Whether or not you are a "rules nut", don't you think you should at least think about calling the game the way tradition, history and most contemporary authoritative opinion and interpretation say it should be called?

I'm not trying to be hard on you, senior, believe me. I only want you to see that calling the game "by the book" is a pipe dream, given the current state of that book. Giving back the high strike is one thing. Failing to recognise that the strike zone is NOT the only place we ignore or modify the book requirement is another.

Cheers,

Warren Willson