Many pitchers throw a breaking ball that comes in fairly straight, above the strike zone, and then breaks down into the catcher's glove. The catcher catches the ball at a spot directly behind the strike zone.

From my perspective behind the plate, some of these break down through the back of the zone (which I call a strike), and some don't (which I call a ball).

Because the catcher catches the ball in an apparent 'strike location', many expect it to be called a strike. That is, if your only calling the 'catch', and not the flight.

As I am watching the pro games this year, it seems like the majority of these pitches are called strikes, with only a few umpires willing to call some balls, and some strikes.

My questions are;

1) If such a pitch is caught in a location that is directly behind the strike zone, should it always be called a strike ?

2) Is it actually possible to throw a pitch that is above the zone and then breaks down into the catcher's glove and NOT get a piece of the zone as some of the pitches appear ? (in which case, I've made quite a few bad calls)

Thanks,

1) No

2) Yes

Thanks Bob,

After the calls I have been seeing in MLB on this pitch, I was starting to question how I've been calling them.