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?

Exactly
 

My philosophy is exactly that with Rich.

If the catcher sets up outside the zone he doesn't want a strike, the coach don't want a strike. That's why he called the pitch.

The F2 stabbing the ball across the plate give the impression to everyone that the pitch is a ball, and that's what I give them.

Of course this is HS level and college.

When I used to call 13-14's and under I'll take every strike that I can get.

Thanks
David

David, I ask you the same thing then. Is your zone less than 17" across if the catcher sets up away from the center of home plate?

My answer: I try not to let the catcher influence my calls, but it happens. So, theoretically, the answer to the question is, "No,", but practically, it's "Yes."

thank you Bob. You said it exactly like I was thinking.

Thanks
David

17" across? If the catcher sets up a bit outside (1-2 ball widths or so) and the pitcher can hit that spot, I'm going to have a nice day. Of course my zone is never less than 17" across.

So if your zone is still 17", but you're not calling pitches on the inside corner when F2 sets up outside, I assume this means your zone extends outside past the glove a bit.

Now, same catcher sets up inside, so you give him a couple of extra inches inside while taking away a bit outside.

How the heck are batters to know what you're going to call a strike? So, now, they need to get into the box and watch the catcher to figure out where the zone's going to be for that pitch? Do we not see the problem here - essentially the batter now has to protect 25-30 inches across. Don't you think that's a bit much?

Well,
 

In a clinic taught by Ted Barrett, Mike Winters, Dale Scott, Gary Darling and Larry Poncino we were taught that the plate is actually 22" wide when calling strikes.

Tee,

Were they really teaching that the <b>plate</b> was that wide, or that the <b>strike zone</b> was that wide?

JM

I try not to let the way the catcher catches the ball influence my call - especially in a high school game, where there are few true "catchers". Same thing with the catcher that cannot catch a cock shot - I won't ball a good pitch because he can't do HIS job. Strikes are too few and far between to let one go.

Hmmm,
 

OK, I'll try . . .

"The plate's width as it deals with the strike zone."

Sarge took two baseballs:

He set one on the ground so the inner edge of the ball touched the third base edge of the plate.

He set another ball on the ground so the inner edge of that ball touched the first base side edge of the plate.

He then took a marker and marked the outer edges of the same two balls.

He then took a tape and measured the distance from inside of line #1 to the inside of line #2.

That equals 22".

Define that however you want. It is a smaller measurement than Eric Gregg's strike zone.

I don't give the catchers much inside -- maybe a ball's width. I may give 2 ball widths outside. We're talking about the rare pitch where the catcher has to dive back to catch the ball, not every third pitch. It's an aberration, not the norm.

And in most HS games, I'm calling as many strikes as I can, so this doesn't really pertain there, either. I'm talking top level HS and college games for the most part.

Anyone who calls a 17" zone in HS games is missing a lot of strikes.

If he sets up outside and the comes down the tube, it's a strike. But if it is off the black inside and he has to reach for it, everybody in the park is expecting a ball call, so they get it. Now if he sets up on the black and the pitcher hammers the mitt with it, it looks so good that everybody in the park expects a strike, except the batter, who should have been swinging. If he sets up inside and the ball catches the black, same thing. Inside or outside, on the black, an inch below the knee, and the catcher did a good job, it's a strike. I am a little stingy on high srikes, but if the pitcher throws one two inches above the belt on the black (either side), oh my... I seldom get a comment when the catcher looks good catching one and I call it a strike. How a catcher catches is definitely a factor on the borderline pitches. If he drops one that comes down the pipe, no matter, it will be a strike. If he drops a borderline pitch, it's a ball.

Why would you be stingy on high strikes?

Well I meant stingy on high borderline pitches. If it's high but in the zone, I call it.

Re: 17" vs 22" - I did say 17 (plus the width of the ball) in the first post, but shortened that to just 17 for future posts (got tired of typing the extra).

I see your points, and I do understand that sometimes the PERCEIVED call is the one that is made. Where I was going with that is that I've seen umpires call a pitch 6-8 inches outside where the catcher set up just outside of the corner and only moved the glove 3-4 inches... and then justify it using the logic posted here. I feel that's patently unfair to the hitter, who (most times) has no clue where the catcher has set up. It sounds like you are not saying here that YOU call it that way.

I believe that I will continue to call the strike on the inside black, with catcher set up outside a strike. If I called it with the catcher in the middle, I'm calling it wherever he sits. I also do not see the justification for calling a borderline pitch a strike if the catcher catches it, and a ball if he drops it. Frankly, that seems exceedingly silly. A strike is a strike is a strike.

If I read Rich's comments correctly, I need to open up my strike zone. Had a kid Sat set up with glove about 2" outside of white. Tie game, late innings, two strikes on batter, catcher does not move glove, I ball it. Pitch was outside strike zone. DC was not happy. So be it.

Umpires have reputations. If your rep is having a "big" strike zone okay, but I want to be known as an umpire that consistently calls the zone. I want coaches to know what they are getting when they hire me. In a quality game with quality pitching, no pitch below the knees is a strike, period! No pitch that is of the plate inside or outside is a stike, period. Let me say, however, that I agree with Tim that the plate is 22" and I do give alittle black. But an inch of clearance between ball and black, no way!

You are missing one thing, probably cause I haven't said it well. I'm talking about a borderline pitch where I'm using every bit of evidence from the time the pitch leaves the pitcher's hand until he catches it. If he catches it well, I'm able to continue processing information and it may end up giving me enough to call it a strike. If he drops it and the ball is rolling around, well, it's going to be harder for me to do that.

I don't intentionally punish catchers who don't catch pitches. But I will say -- even on a cock shot at the higher levels -- if I call it a ball because the catcher didn't catch it, the coach is going to be yelling at the catcher to squeeze it, not at me.

Your reputation will be one of an umpire who (1) squeezes pitchers and (2) doesn't know how to call a good corner.

A 14-13 game with 26 walks doesn't make anyone happy.

Scyguy, there is an old theory that if you call a big (not exagerated) strike zone early in the game, the teams will swing the bat more often and decide the game without you. Just stay consistent. Most of all, your games will be shorter.

But, if you like calling balls and consistently have 3 hr games. Be our guest. Now when you get to the Pros, well good job and we hope you come back to give us your input then, too. 8 varsity games to date this year. 7 of them avg just under 2 hrs. First one 3-1/2hrs. 25-0 and the strike zone was nose to knees, at least 26 inches wide.

Exactly and coaches ...
 

And good coaches know the difference. Might be where you are umpiring but around the South when F2 drops the pitch on a marginal pitch, the coach usually says right away,

"c'mon jj, if you catch that pitch its a strike."

Once you get to college ball that's expected and is pretty much traditional. If you want to call them go ahead, but you're only going to ask for trouble and the coaches do know the difference.

Well, not all coaches do, but you know what I mean.

Thanks
David

Not so fast,
 

It was noted somewhere above:

" . . . no pitch below the knees is a strike, period!"

--------------------------------

Then this umpire would never work serious baseball in my area. A pitch where the top of the ball catches the bottom of the knee and is caught and framed well by F2 is a strike when seen by upper level umpires.

Pretty simple.

As an umpire calls more of the defined strike zone players, coaches and even fans adjust to what is called.

When I first started as an umpire my first goal was to have a consistent strike zone for each individual hitter.

As my abilities increased through practice I increased that consistency to complete half innings. Soon that moved to full innings.

Somewhere along the way I noticed that calling balls and strikes was much easier than I had thought. It was simply good positioning, tracking the pitch and having good timing.

Somewhere in the late 70's my consistency had stretched to several innings (and now and then even a full game).

I never had an exact instant when working the dish for balls/strikes became "easy" -- it just did. But remember, in those days if a PU had 8 to 10 "questionable pitches" he was considered to have done a very good job.

So now we fast forward to today:

I seldom ever get must "harping" from anyone on balls/strikes. Being my own worst critic I work to keep under 2 Ups and 2 Downs (what we call strikes that are called balls and balls that you call strikes -- last night I was 0 ups and 1 down).

I also am considered a "pitcher's umpire." Do I "expand" the strike zone . . . nope, I just call more of it than some.

In closing I always post the same thing here over-and-over:

Umpires seldom, if ever, get in trouble for calling too many strikes (ignore Eric Gregg in this situation) or too many outs.

The "easy" calls and balls and safes.

if the top of the ball hits the bottom of the knee, then it is not below the knee, is it?? Don't put words in my mouth. If you use the call more strikes philosophy then you are going to call pitches one or two inches below the knee a strike. How about expanding the top of the zone, now lets call just below the arm pits. How about 2, no 3 inches off the plate. When does it stop?? Call the zone that is defined in the rulebook. If the game takes 3 hours, so be it. Remember, the hitter deserves the same respect as the pitcher. Just because I want to get home to my family doesn't mean I start calling pitches outside the zone strikes. Just my opinion.

Please come back and tell me when everything we've been telling you finally makes sense. It will happen at some point.

Come on man, you have to be kidding.

I agree with Rich, GOOD LUCK.

Well,
 

I tried.

But alas -- I will now turn my attention to guys that "get it!"

As Carl is wont to say, "Lah Me!"

Before I started umpiring I coached HS baseball for 13 years. As a coach my teams won 7 district titles, 4 sectional titles and two trips to the state tournament. As a coach I appreciated umpires that called the zone. I understood that if I taught my pitchers to make quality pitches, then they would be successful. Also, if I taught my hitters the strike zone then they could be successful. When umpires would "expand" the zone to meet their own needs, it put my trained hitters at a disadvantage.

I come to umpiring with this mindset. Equity for both pitcher and hitter. I appreciate the comments that I am recieving, but expanding my zone is not a comfortable idea.

You guys preach that we need to call the book, ie gorilla arm balks, etc. but are willing to go outside the book to create new dimensions for the zone. You are right--I don't get it. Why do you do it? To eliminate a game with alot of walks or take 3 hours. Well, if the coaches taught there pitchers how to throw strikes this would not be a problem. Call the zone defined in the book.

Its kinda like letting kids have poor grades and continue to play athletics. If we don't demand more from our kids, how are they going to improve? If I reward pitchers when they don't earn it, then what am I teaching?

Maybe one of the reasons for inadequate pitching in the professional levels is because they were allowed to get away with so much as amateurs.

Couldn't have said it better scyguy....GREAT POST!

say what??
 

i don't even want to go down that road.

The reason for inadequate pitching is now the umpires fault??

Okay, I get it now. NOT!!

The reason for the poor pitching is that the coaches don't teach the kids how to pitch.

Want to watch a pitcher, watch Roger Clemons or Greg Maddux. Now why don't we see more of those guys -

its because it takes hard work to learn how to pitch and also to learn what is the strike zone. How many times do you see Maddux throwing a pitch above the belt on purpose?

Maybe two times in his career. Keep it down and away or down and in.

Oh well, we tried. As other have said best of luck.

Thanks
David

Ok Scyguy, you want it by the book, you got it. Just make sure you practice what you preach!

In accordance with Federation Rules:

The Circumference of a baseball is 9 to 9-1/4 inches.(Say 9.125 inches)

Using the formula of Cir.= PI (d) and PI= 3.14159

then D=Diameter of the baseball equales 2.9045 inches.

OK, A strike is "a pitch that enters any part of the strike zone in flight and is not struck at" 7.2.1a

If the ball touches the zone, it is technically a strike but, for the purist it has to enter the zone. So I will say 1/8 inch is enough to enter the zone.

Now the plate is 17 inches wide and for the purist the ball can enter 1/8 inch into the zone to be a strike.

So 17 inches minus 2(1/8) inches equales 16 - 3/4 inches. Now lets add the width of the ball on each side of the plate and what do we get, (by the book), 16-3/4 + 2.9045 + 2.9045 = 22.559 inches.

SO BY THE BOOK the strike zone is 22.559 inches. Now don't forget to add this to your upper and lower portion of your strikezone.

I believe that everyone here has more than suggested that the strike zone you believe is unfair to everyone, is in reality , BY THE BOOK.

Sooooo, you can keep your zone or actually call the Rule Book zone, the choice is yours.

GOOD LUCK

Well,
 

This says it all,

" . . . Before I started umpiring I coached HS baseball for 13 years. As a coach my teams won 7 district titles, 4 sectional titles and two trips to the state tournament. As a coach . . ."

Another Emerling . . .

Don't sprain your arm.

I am sure all of the big dogs have left this thread and said they are not to return. But if you do then maybe you could explain comments like:

"Your reputation will be one of an umpire who (1)squeezes pitchers and (2) doesn't know how to call a good corner".

I know how to call a corner, not a pitch 2-3" off of the black, that is not a corner.


"But, if you like calling balls and consistently have 3 hr games. Be our guest. Now when you get to the Pros, well good job and we hope you come back to give us your input then, too".


So does this mean that we should not immenuate what the pros do?



"I also am considered a "pitcher's umpire." Do I "expand" the strike zone . . . nope, I just call more of it than some".


Expand --No, More of it--Yes? You mean you call the strike zone defined in the rulebook PLUS additional areas?


I come to this website mainly for guidance from much more seasoned officials than I. Do I take my share of "slaps"? Sure, it comes with the territory. I have learned alot from this forum. But messing with the strike zone seems wrong.

I have admired the way you guys are sticklers for the rulebook. "If it is a balk, then call it!" "If it is in the rulebook, then you must enforce it". But now when it comes to the strike zone it is okay to change the guidelines. Wow, I'm disillusioned by this inconsistency. I think maybe there is a good reason for it. But all I get is a time thing, or batters can adjust, or boring 14-13 with 26 walks.

Please convince me of the err of my ways, because at this moment I am very disappointed in most of the responses.

I have always not liked the adage "We get paid to call strikes and outs". We get paid to do our job!!

jcone, that is the strike zone I am talking about!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we are on the wrong page. I do call that strike zone. But I don't call 2" CLEARANCE between the ball and the plate!! That is what I have been saying ALL ALONG!!!

Do any of you "big dogs" strike a pitch with 2" of CLEARANCE between the inside of the ball (outside pitch) and the black???? If no, then we are on the same page. If yes, then you possibly can understand my confusion.

It was noted:

"Please convince me . . . "

I only try to "convince" people who want to learn and improve.

okay Tim I don't want to get in a fight with you. You are the man, I am a pile of crap, FINE.

I feel like a man screaming underwater.

.....only want to learn??? Why do you think I am here. My God.

Please accept my sincerest apologizies. I am sure that I failed to explain myself properly. Have a good day, I have to go umpire now.

[Edited by scyguy on Apr 19th, 2005 at 03:54 PM]

And,
 

I'm still three hours from game time.

"Stealin'money today", as my friend Rich would say.

Immenuate?

You say you come here to learn. Mostly what I see, though, is that you come here to argue (or play devil's advocate, or ask overly broad questions, ...)

Those are all ways of learning. There are better ways, imho.

Bob, I don't want to come across as someone that is here to argue, I only want to completely understand an issue. Some times my methods are less than perfect.

My zone in and out is usually limited to inch or so of clearance from black. Does it change? Sure. Low level baseball, blowouts and JV games, I will give more. Low pitches I feel are too often called strikes. I try to make pitcher get the top of ball at the base of the knee. It helps me to watch ball into glove and see if catcher turns glove over or even drops the top part of his glove. This is assuming he is not throwing off-speed pitches. The top of the zone is determined by my eye level in the heel-to-toe stance I use. I was taught to place my head so that pitches in my chin area would be the upper part of the zone. It seems to work well. A problem I have, however, is when I use the GD stance determining the vertical part of the zone. I am working on it and hope to improve.

I want to apologize for my statements yesterday. I wasn't in the best of moods and said things I probably shouldn't have said. You guys can think whether you want of me, but your comments for the most part have been very helpful to me.

Tim, I only commented on my experience as a coach to try and qualify my position from a coaching standpoint. I did not intend to blow my own horn. I am very proud of my success as a coach as you are proud of the work that you do. I worked very hard at being a good coach and I try and bring that same dedication to my umpiring. Being good at something is a journey of ups and downs. But striving for perfection is an admirable quality. Some of you are already there, but some of us are still working at it.

Finally, my comments yesterday centered more on allowing more than 2 inches of clearance outside the black. I cannot see you guys with the quality of baseball that you do calling this a strike. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But as some of you have pointed out, consistency is the key. That is the holy grail.

WOW!!!
 

Where this has gone!! I am offline for a couple days and it is all over the place. My point was pitchers hitting their spots, not what is the strike zone. It was also not ripping into Texas umpires by any means. That is why it is titled "If I didn't know any better.."

Tim thank you for your posts. Per usual you were on the mark. I think scguy is actually there as well in reading all this, just not really coming accross as he is.. He keeps saying 17" but if I am reading him right he will call that inside edge of the ball on the outside white edge of the plate.

In responce to what was asked of me before. In theory my strike zone is "17 inches" wide but in practice no. If the catcher is set up inside I will give the inside edge "the black" and even an inch more, but I will not let the catcher dive back across the plate to the outside corner, even if it pass over white a little. Everyone in the park see him diving out and expects it will be a ball. Conversely I do the same if he is set up on the outside corner. However if he moves that glove out a couple inches I will ball that pitch as it is too far out and basically unhittable. I will not be Eric Greg. Example, 0-2 count and the catcher slides outside just off the plate. The pitch hits the catchers mit square. It will be a ball as probably 95% of the coaches realize that it is a ball. They are just trying to get the hitter to chase that pitch. Works great with a decent slider/2 seam that breaks off the plate. 4 seam, not so much. Now if the pitcher "misses" his mark a little and the catcher reaches a little back towards the plate but catches the ball inside his frame, I will call that a strike, as it was there on the plate.

As far as the catcher catching it and how he catches it, yes it is important but not critical. If the pitch is borderline low and he turns his fingers down, it is a ball. If it is a "cock shot" and he drops it, I will stike that pitch. If he is on a corner and he drops it but keeps it in front of him, I will strike that. If it goes to the backstop, ball. If he rises up and blocks my view ball. If the coaches asks where that pitch was, I simple tell him the catcher thought it was high and came up to where I could not see it, so I have to expect that the pitch was high. Ususally is folled by the coach telling his catcher to stay down on those pitches.

In theory, a bad catcher may cost his pitcher 4 or 5 pitches per game, at the most (ok some may do even more). A great catcher will help his pitcher a few pitches a game by making those borderline pitches look great, usually with a good stick.

As well, if a catcher is set up in the middle of the plate. I will give a little bit of a reach to the corners and even let the catcher lean a bit. In warmups I tell the catcher if he wants to stay behind the point, I will give them the reach to get that inside corner or to make sure they slide back a bit if they do set up inside, whatever it takes so I can see that inside pitch. Outside corner I don't tho as they can set up there and I can see the plate without a problem.

Also don't miscontrue me either. I am not saying a pitcher has to hit the glove exactly where the catcher puts it. He needs to keep it basically in the catchers "frame".

wheeew.. Sorry so long but I think I hit on all that was asked of me or commented on..

just for the record, I NEVER mentioned 17". Never. I spoke of clearance between ball and black. Rulebook defines circumference of ball, dimension of the white part of the plate and a strike is when any part of the ball crosses the plate. That sounds like a 22" plate to me.

I'm not real sure why I was the goat on this one. Maybe I did not state myself clearly. By the end of the thread I was labeled an argumentative, hardheaded jerk.

In the future I will try to be as specific as I possibly can. Definitely don't want the gang to bury me again.

By the way, do any of you watch the TV show "House"? Extremely knowledgeable doctor with a "unique" bed side manner? Great show!!

[QUOTEBy the way, do any of you watch the TV show "House"? Extremely knowledgeable doctor with a "unique" bed side manner? Great show!! [/B][/QUOTE]

yeah, but he wears two ballbags and dusts off the trashcans when he makes his rounds ;)