Called a game today between one of our local Tulsa teams and a team from Ft Worth. If I didn't know better I would seriously believe that umpires in Texas don't make the varsity pitchers "hit their mark" or "spot".

I got the Texas catcher setting up on the outside corner. Reached clear in to the inside corner for a curve ball barely on the black. Ball I say. You'd think I shot the Pope or something.

I will give a little bit of a reach as after all they are high school kids and not college or pros but not that much. Of course then when the Tulsa catcher reaches just a little, I'm inconsistant.

So what is up you Texas umps? You giving us "Okie" umps a bad rep by doing this!!!!

Cowbyfan1,

I'm from no where near the mid-west, but from what I'm reading here, you may want to watch your criticism of the TX umps for actually calling a pitch that catches a corner (whether the corner intended or not) a strike. Last time I read the rulebook, a pitch that crossed the plate within the strike zone was a strike...correct me if I'm wrong, but the black of the plate is still within the strike zone.

Last time I read the rulebook, the strike zone was defined as the area over home base. It makes no mention of "the black". You are making stuff up.

You can't be serious that the way the catcher catches the ball has no input on weather the pitch is a ball or strike.

tmp44,

While I agree with the "gist" of your comments, the space over the "black of the plate" is <b>NOT</b> technically (i.e. by rule) part of the strike zone.

If you read the rule regarding the dimensions of home plate you will find that it is, by rule, 17" wide at its widest part (i.e. the side facing the pitcher). If you take a tape measure to any (or several) of your favorite ballfields, you will find that "the black" is outside of that 17".

JM

The "black" is not part of the strike zone. It is there to provide contrast with the white, which is the plate area. A pitch that barely catches the black is a ball, but the black is very narrow, so it would be a very close call. A catcher that sets up outside and has to reach inside to make the catch makes the call a little easier.

[Edited by DG on Apr 17th, 2005 at 11:03 PM]

If the plate is properly installed, you shouldn't see any of the black.

10%

Guys,

Reading the roiginal sitch it says that Cowbyfan1 called the pitch a ball because it did not pass over any of the white and barely caught the black that unfortunately was showing.

His error, as I see it, is requiring the pitcher to "hit his mark" to call a marginal pitch a strike, which I find to be unnacceptable.

As LDUB inferred, just call each legal pitch that passes over the plate and in the strike zone a strike and forget about any catcher movement.

things must have changed
 

Well its been 10 years since I left the big city of Ft. Worth, but unless things have changed there were some very good umpires.

Of course, it also depends on what part of the city the team is from. The southside was the strong side of town where as the northside was pretty weak back in my day.

The better umpires always preferred the southside and usually were sent there. The younger guys usually called the northside.

But things might have changed ... and that would be sad.

Thanks
David

" . . . forget about any catcher movement."

Hahahahaha!

What a kidder.

Tim, or someone else of extensive experience,

Please explain a reasonable philosophy for this situation.

Catcher sets up outside... calling for a pitch that should be outside the plate. Pitcher 'misses' his mark and the pitch comes down the tube/middle of the plate.

I've had other umpires tell me that they would not call that pitch a strike because the pitcher missed his mark.

What is expected of a top-flight umpire here? I see three options:

1) Does the strike zone move way outside - call a strike when the pitcher hits his mark even though the pitch is not over the plate?
-or-
2) Do I assume the battery has given up opportunity to pitch a strike - If he does hits his mark it will not be over the plate and therefore a ball? If he does not hit his mark, it should also be a ball even if that 'miss' is over the plate.
-or-
3) Should I continue to call balls and strike based upon the position of the ball relative to the batter?

Option #1 does not seem reasonable. Option #2 has merits. But to date, I've always chosen option #3 - no change from any other pitch. Additionally, I do not change my viewing position behind the plate. Should I be considering some other options?

The majority of my ball is High School Varsity and slightly older American Legion. Does the level of ball make a difference on how this scenario should be called?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Ok my bad on the "plate area," but the point of my post was I don't understand how someone can call a pitch a ball when it's a strike. We all make mistakes (obviously, like the one I made on the "black"), but this falls outside of interpretation and more along the lines of disregarding. I would love to see some of you guys tell a coach "Coach, sorry, but the reason that pitch was a ball was because your catcher set up outside and it hit the inside corner."

It's up to you. I see this degrading into another thread where people accuse others of not calling pitches "by the rules." What the heck.

If a catcher sets up outside and has to stab back across the plate to catch a pitch that barely catches the white of the plate, I'm likely going to call it a ball at any level I work (which pretty much starts at HS varsity).

It's no different than the curve ball that may catch the knee at the front of the plate and is caught by the catcher with his glove at the ground. You may choose to call that a strike, but just try that in a good HS or college game.

Tony,
 

What a great question . . . I also like it when one of my employees asks a questions but also has a solution (or two or three):

"Calling the glove" is far different from what you ask.

It is my job to call "strikes" if they are.

Seems simple, yet it is like all umpiring.

Umpiring is remarkably simple yet endlessly complicated (that is a direct steal from an Arnold Palmer article in Sports Illustrated from the early 60's just replacing "golf" with "umpiring").

I call ALL pitches down the "gut" strikes. I call strikes if the cather drops the ball, I call strikes if the pitch is not where it was intended.

I do not expand my strike zone to satisfy where a catcher sets-up. I have no idea whether he is trying to expand MY strike zone or that of the BATTER. I just keep consistent.

Calling great balls/strikes starts with timing. We know that.

We also know that we need to include in the process the positioning of the batter and how the pitch is framed (caught) by the catcher.

We know that a curve ball could, by rule, catch the strike zone yet bounce in the dirt before reaching F2 . . . we know enough to not call that a strike . . .

Tony, "my" strike zone is shaped like an egg. It starts at the bottom of the letters (on a normal uniform)at the top end and ends at the bottom of the knee. I call the corners if any part of the ball touches them.

All this information is processed during the instant of reflection that occurs before making the call.

In my opinion the strike zone is much more "art" than "science".

Let me get this straight, cowboyfan.

If the catcher sets up in the middle of the plate, you give him the full white portion of the plate. 17 inches (plus the width of the ball on both sides).

But if the catcher sets up outside, he only gets a portion of the plate? Or do you give him additional space on the outside of the plate proportionate with the amount of space you're taking away from him on the inside of the plate? Not sniping (yet), just curious. Is the width of "your" zone less than 17" (plus the ball) if the catcher is not in the center of the plate?

PS - can you show me in any book (rulebook, casebook, J/R, anything) where it discusses the necessity for the pitcher to hit the glove instead of throwing it over the plate?