Strike zone

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That's a different issue, and one with which I would not take issue. When that happens, the ball is in the strike zone during it's time over the plate. The pitch I referred to take the bottom of the knee at the front and is down and out of the zone from that point. Touching, versus passing.

So what I understand from this post is that for you to call a strike, the pitch must be in the strike zone the entire time it is over the plate.
Is this correct?

So if a pitch hits the front of the plate an inch or two above your upper zone and then breaks big to below the belt when the catcher receives it, that pitch is a ball?

So can our disagreement on this issue comes down to this?

I call a strike if at any point the pitch enters the zone. You call a strike only if while the ball is over the plate it is in the zone.

Seems to me both strike zones are reasonable, and it seems to me reasonable people should be able to have such differences without as much emotion as this thread has generated.

Just for clarification.

If a tailing fastball catches the corner in the front part of zone and then tails off(as WWTBs post indicated and you had no issue with) it can be strike because while it was over the plate it was in the zone.
But if the same pitch hits the corner and then goes down out of the zone instead of to the side it cannot be a strike.

You differentiate between a pitch leaving the zone to the side vs the bottom.
Is that difference because of some advantage/disadvantage to the batter or some other reason?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by NIump50

You differentiate between a pitch leaving the zone to the side vs the bottom.

No I don't. Why would you say that? I differentiated between a pitch immediatley leaving the zone after toucing the bottom of the knee at the front of the plate and a pitch ENTERING the zone from the side. Two distinctly different animals.