Strike zone
 

On another baseball BB, I'm involved in a thread discussing the strike zone.

On individual made the following post.

The model I try to use for calling balls and strikes differs quite a bit from what your suggesting. Imagine a plate of glass suspended in the air. The front of the glass is directly above the front lip of the plate. The glass is 18" wide, and starts at a point halfway between the hitter's belt and the top of his shoulders when he is standing in his normal batting stance. The bottom of the glass ends at the hollow just below the hitter's kneecaps. There is no debth to the glass plate.

As I observe the pitch I register what I see and try and answer; did the ball break the plate of glass? Did any part of the ball touch any part of that glass plate? The secondary clues that make up much of this list just confirm or conflict with my assesment of the condition that glass plate is in.

I understand that the zone is pretty much up to the umpire’s judgment, but I’m of the belief that the zone is in fact 3 dimensional, not 2, and that what happens after the ball passes the plate shouldn’t have any bearing at all on the call.

As I said, I understand that in practice, many factors are involved, but I also believe the rules defining what the strike zone is, shouldn’t really be affected.

In practice, do most experienced umps try to take into account a pitch such as a slow curve “falling” into the zone, or something like a “flat” slider from a side armed guy missing the front edge but touching the zone someplace past the front of the plate?

The strike zone IS two dimensional.

The only problem with that poster's strike zone is that he is putting the strike zone at the front of the plate, instead of where the batter is standing.

There's no such thing as falling into the strikezone. If there was, all those 45 mph Little Leaguers would be throwing strikes everytime the ball came across the batter's eyes.

3d
 

The strike zone is a cube. It's dimensions are 17in wide x 8.5in deep x height (distance between the batter's knees and the midpoint between his shoulders and the waistline). Add a couple of inches for the black if you're so inclined.

I guess if we called our strike zones in a vaccuum it might look like a cube. The better umpires I know use the concept of an oval strike zone.


Tim.

The strike zone IS two dimensional.

The only problem with that poster's strike zone is that he is putting the strike zone at the front of the plate, instead of where the batter is standing.



Methinks you need to re-read the definition.

Please have patience. I don’t post here often and don’t wanna offend anyone.

What I understand you to be saying is, the plate has no relevance to anything other than to determine the width. I must admit, I’d never thought of it that way, so I’d like to ask a question to see if I’m really understanding what you’re saying.

Its not likely, but it is possible for a batter to put his back foot on the line, and never stand where he’s even with any part of the plate by staying within that 27.5” behind the plate. It sounds like what you’re saying is, that’s where the pitches should be called. Am I understanding what you’re saying correctly?

As for a ball “falling” into the zone, I can’t argue that one if you believe the “zone” only has 2 dimensions.

Also, I have to admit that I was thinking more along the lines of the way MLB sees the zone, not the way LL’rs(generic) see it.

Much lower level
 

Very few umpires ever call the high strike zone, or even acknowledge it's existence.
The perfect strike crosses into the zone at or near the "waste" line.

http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/of...trike_zone.jsp

Subtract a half foot or more from the top of the batter in the picture for a more realistic MLB scale drawing.
Nine out of ten ballplayers prefer the lower zone. No one ever gives the ump much grief about it either.

I admit I don’t know much more about the zone than any other average fan, but I do know that what I hear and read is, MLB is trying to get the umps to call the zone displayed in the picture you refer to rather than the one you say they do.

My understanding is that’s the main reason systems like “QuesTec” and the “K-zone” are being used to actually grade pro umps. QuesTec is now in 23 of the ML parks, and I don’t know how many Minor league parks use it, but its more than just 1 or 2.

From what I’ve come across on the subject, the umps aren’t real happy about being graded, and the P’s are enjoying the heck out of getting more of a zone.

Ummmm, no.

Also Reported
 

I read the politicos were upset with the strike zone being called more than 6 inches off the plate {ala Greg Maddux or Eric Greg et al}. Baseball leadership said it would be corrected. The electronic systems were not truly perfect from one batter to the next, either. The umps were not very happy to be told that their borderline calls were questionable. Those evaluations were strictly used for training purpose only, and not actually rating performance quality. Umpires are human and mistakes are part of the game.

Whether the high strike is called as often as the inside, outside and bottom of the zone is a mystery. I feel the height of the strike zone really isn't much different now, than before (pure opinion). But then again, I also believe in the posiibility (as small as it may be) of a rising fastball. I doubt the pitchers are really happy with a "higher" strike zone. Slow motion video instant replay may provide a better picture of events.

Disclaimer: All statements are simply one opinion subject to change over time.

"The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

My interpretation (as taught to me by a clinician {and we know they can be wrong}, is that this means that the vertical aspect is to be determined by the batter's normal batting stance.

Wouldn't this also mean that it is the batter, not the front of the plate, that determines the point at which a pitch is determined a strike and a ball, and nowhere else?

Again, this was my clinician's viewpoint that has been put on me. Don't bash me too bad. Just show me the light. Seems as though this viewpoint is wrong.

Its really nitpicking, but I want to be the best!

The strike zone is three dimensional. It has width, height, and depth. It is directly over the plate, not where the batter stands. A pitch can certainly look high on its way to the plate and fall into the strike zone. The midpoint between the waist and shoulder is not as easy to determine as the elbows, which are generally about halfway or a little lower. If a pitch comes in below the elbows it could very likely be called a strike, especially if directly over the plate. Tee has said his zone is like an egg, oblong in shape. Mine is more like a bullit, flat across the bottom. Below the elbows and dead center will be a strike. Below the elbows and in or out might not be, depending on how well it was caught.

The perfect strike for whom?
Certainly not for the pitcher
LOL

I will admit, the top of my strike zone does tend to "bubble". What I mean is that pitch that comes across down the middle and is borderline on height gets the benefit, while the ones on the outside and inside seem not to.

Is this OK?

This may be way too simplistic, but here’s how I interpret it as a layman.

Let’s build a strike zone out of a block of wood.

We’ll start by digging up the plate and replacing it with a hydraulic hoist shaped to the exact dimensions of a plate, making sure its perfectly level. Now we can raise and lower the “zone” however much we choose.

Now lets get a block of wood 6’X6’X6’. The 1st thing we have to do is get it milled to exactly the same shape as the plate, and mill the bottom so its perfectly flat. The reason for that is, the rule says “that area over home plate”. Since we don’t yet have a height, it will be just a 6’ tall home plate.

Now we need a batter because we need to know the upper and lower limits of the zone. We’ll put him in a uniform, and have him take his “stance” as if he were “preparing to hit a pitched ball”, then measure from the ground to the “hollow beneath the knee cap”. (We’re using OBR. ;-)

Now we know the lower limit of the strike zone, so we raise the jack until the milled bottom of the block of wood is exactly that height.

Next we measure from the ground to “midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants” to get the upper limit of the zone, then cut the top of the block of wood and mill it like we did with the bottom.

Notice, we didn’t move the block of wood because we didn’t have to. The rules don’t relate where the batter’s standing in relation to the plate. All they say is how to define the upper and lower limits of the zone. Those limits could just as easily be measured in Timbuktu or that place with the nasty name in Egypt. All that matters is that the measurements are taken with the batter “preparing to hit a pitched ball”.

Step back and you see the strike zone for that batter.

Is your clinician wrong? Heck NO! We determined the vertical aspect exactly as described in the rules(OBR, not what the clinician told you.;-)

Of course, if you’re using a different rule book that describes the vertical aspect differently than OBR, that’s what you’d use. Unless LL Inc. has changed their rule since 1996, it goes from the batter’s arm pits to the top of the knees. I don’t have access to all of the different rule books so I can’t say what any specific one uses. That’s why in discussions like this, I stick with OBR.

As to whether or not your view point is “wrong”, IMHO it is, but only partially, and that’s only in that you seem to be using the position of the batter in relation to the plate to determine when to call the pitch.

To me, that hasn’t got a thing to do with it. Up in the box, even with the plate, or standing with both feet on the back line will not change the vertical aspect of the strike zone. The pitch has to be called “over home plate”.

It might help to think about what happens if a batter thinks he has been granted time, but hasn’t, then steps out of the box while the P is delivering the ball. OBR 6.08 says <I> If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call "Ball" or "Strike," as the case may be.</I>

How can that happen if the batter isn’t there? It can happen because the ump has already determined the vertical aspect. Those umps have computer-like minds ya know. ;-)

I’d like to reiterate that everything I’m saying is only my opinion.

Absolutely right. The strike zone is not a flat plane like a pane of glass. It is a five-sided, 3-D area determined not by where in the box the batter stands, but by the area over the five-sided slab of whitened rubber we refer to as "home plate."

Pitches often come in as inside, then break over what is known as the "back corner," which is located 8 and 1/2 inches to the rear of the front edge of the plate.

Story from my game today: Pitcher throws a boderline high curve ball right down the middle of the plate. Strike I call. Next pitch is another curve ball, at the same height of the previous pitch, except on the inside corner. Ball I call. Assistant coach from the dugout yells "Where the hell was that pitch at?!?!" I yelled back "Hey chief, that was up." Coach responds "That was the same height as the previous pitch." I screamed back "Yes you are correct, but the plate is longer right down the middle than on the inside corner. The pitch down the middle caught the top edge of the strike zone, but the pitch on the corner did not." Coach says back "Okay, sounds good to me."

As mentioned in a previous thread, I didn't know they existed! But it seems their natural habitats are parking lots.

[QUOTE
Wouldn't this also mean that it is the batter, not the front of the plate, that determines the point at which a pitch is determined a strike and a ball, and nowhere else?
QUOTE]

There in lies the problem. I have always thought that most fans and coaches believe the strike zone follows the batters position in the box. Hence a batter way back in the box appears to be getting low strikes called on him when in fact the ball has crossed the plate at the right height. They yell "what was that blue" and they really don't have a clue. It's almost the same problem with catchers setting up to far back.

I don't disagree, Tim. I'm just disputing the statement that the zone is like a plane of glass. It does have depth to it. Like officiating any sport, once you know the rules you have to learn how to apply them.

This is how I try to define my strike zone. Doing this helps me to avoid making a two plane gross miss.


I try to visualize the strike as an zone oval being expanded to about 22" at it's mid-point. The mid-point of the oval is stationed near the mid-thigh of the batter in his sweet spot. Then imagine the vertical limits of this oval starting at the knee extending up to a point near the bottom of the numbers. If a pitch catches the outer limits of the oval at it's mid-point it is a strike without question. As the oval extends downward toward the bottom limit of the zone, there is less and less latitude given to a pitch that is on the same horizontal plane as the pitch called a strike at the mid-thigh. This would include the inside or the outside pitch. The same thing can be said for the oval extending upwards in the zone. Up and in is a ball. Up and out is a ball. Up and on the plate at the bottom of the numbers is a strike.


Tim.

If the plate was a pane of glass, the way the catcher caught the ball would have no bearing whatsoever in the calling of strikes and slow-breaking curveballs could hit the knees at the front of the plate and be caught ankle high for a strike.

Neither of these is reality in any real level of baseball.

Is it NOT a reality because the rules say its not, because human beings aren’t capable of calling a pitch by the rules, or because there’s more pressure from what people would like the game to be than from what the game is?

Personally, I don’t really care a whole lot how pitches are called, as long as its by the rules. I believe that sooner or later pitches will be called electronically, and one of two things will happen. The game will be better for it, or the game will be worse.

If the game is better for it, YOAHOO! If the game is worse, change the rules! No rule in baseball is sacrosanct. What a strike is and what the strike zone is have both changed many times over the years, and there’s no reason to expect it will never change again.

In my world, if a pitch is knee high at the front of the plate it's a strike.
Under normal circumstances I have a real hard time seeing a strike and calling a ball. I prefer the other way around.
But then my wife has accused me more than once of not living in reality.

Let it go, Rich. Its tiring to explain this over and over, aint it? :D


buck, when you can appreciate what Rich is saying, you will be able to progress from where you are now to the level you want to be.

LMan,

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Rich was saying something about a pane of glass which is not something I ever said other than in quoting someone else.

In fact, I don’t know what he said that I’d disagree with, so I haven’t got a clue as to why you’d think I don’t appreciate what he’s saying.

I don’t need to progress from any level to the next in my thinking because I understand the difference in what the rules say, what is in fact going to be called, and why the two will never completely agree.

I have no problem at all with how balls and strikes are called, but I do think it would help a lot more people understand the game if they really did understand the difference between theory and reality.

There are a lot of folks who think they understand the rules, the game, and why things happen as they do, but its very seldom they really do. I don’t see a problem with trying to get people to understand that.

I haven’t knocked anyone for the way they think about this subject and don’t see any reason to start now.

If it's that close I call it a strike.

Instead of an oval, I think the strike zone is shaped like home plate with the point of home plate at the top of the strike zone. I agree with those who say that a pitch just below the numbers right down the middle gets called a strike while a pitch of the same height on either corner gets balled. However, I try to be consistent at the bottom of the zone as far as height goes. I work hard at keeping the height of the zone the same whether the pitch is down the middle or on the corner.

Chris

apparently today i had the worst strike zone one coach has ever seen in his life. i should have read this thread before my game today, because apparently i needed a whole lot of help...

[begin rant]when you teach a catcher to put nearly their entire body outside the strike zone, you would think the coach would realize that basically every ball the kid catches is obviously outside of the zone...but hey, its a coach. the kid would catch a ball and not move his glove, but i ball it because its 10 inches outside. the coach would be absolutely disgusted...and the catcher was somehow shocked as well.[end rant]

I must have had a good game today. Not one comment, from bench or fans, about any pitches.

And while we are on the subject of strike zone, how a catcher catches it is definitely a factor, as well as the age of the catcher, and the level of the game. I had one pitch about 2 inches above the knee, and right in the middle of the plate. It hit the catcher's mitt and went sideways about 15 feet. I did not say anything, I just turned and looked at the ball rolling away. The catcher tells his pitcher "that's me, that's me" and no one says a word. This was college players playing with wood bats in the summer, and at that level a catcher should be able to catch a strike.

I also called several pitches strikes that were over the middle that were at the top of the "bullit".

39 words too many if you were talking to a real coach. 44 words too many if you were responding to an assistant.

well said, garth.

bullet or oval. i like both concepts but i lean towards the bullet, especially if the ball on the corner at the knees is well framed. a pitch that is high and in or out always looks like hell when a catcher tries to frame it.

Today I had a batter square to bunt, pulled the bat back way before the pitch arrived at the plate, and it was low, so I called "ball." The stupid coach, who was sitting in the closest part of the dugout to home plate asked, "He didn't offer at it, Blue?"

I said, "If he would have offered at it, I would have called it a strike, don't you think?"

The coach said nothing further.

[QUOTE=DG]I must have had a good game today. Not one comment, from bench or fans, about any pitches.

And while we are on the subject of strike zone, how a catcher catches it is definitely a factor, as well as the age of the catcher, and the level of the game. I had one pitch about 2 inches above the knee, and right in the middle of the plate. It hit the catcher's mitt and went sideways about 15 feet. I did not say anything, I just turned and looked at the ball rolling away. The catcher tells his pitcher "that's me, that's me" and no one says a word. This was college players playing with wood bats in the summer, and at that level a catcher should be able to catch a strike.
[QUOTE]

I had the bases in an adult summer league game last week. The catcher for one of the teams was having a hard time holding on to pitches. At one point, after having three consecutive pitches pop out of his glove the SS yells in, "It's like a ketchup bottle! You have to squeeze it!!!"

Hmmmm,
 

I think discussions of a strike zone begin to define umpiring.

Calling balls and strikes is a mixture between art and science.

It would be impossible for an umpire of quality to call the rule book strike zone. Curve balls that catch the front knee and then bounce short of the catcher cannot, in reality, be called strikes. It is not even an "unwritten rule" it is simple fact.

Umpires that advance to higher level baseball (as played by shaving aged players) learn to call balls and strikes that move a game along both quickly and fairly.

We know that how umpires call the plate defines you as an umpire at all levels. Those "great" base umpires have a good time HOWEVER great plate umpires advance up the chain.

As noted previously in this thread my strike zone is in the shape of an egg. That does not mean that it ends in a point it simply means that high inside/outside pitches and low inside/outside pitches are judged with a little stronger detail.

That is all it means.

This FED season my plate games average less than 1:30 -- while baeball is not played by the clock I think this shows that I move games along with good game managment skills and I call STRIKES.

I often intone the following:

"With the exception of Eric Gregg (RIP) I have never seen an umpire get in trouble for calling too many strikes."

Umpires with conviction call strikes and outs --

While this thread is a wonderful experience in seeing the difference between rule book strikes and real world strikes there is one thing missing:

I don't care how you define a strike. Just make sure that you call each pitch consistently and there will seldom be any problems.

Regards,

Well said Tim C. Calling strikes and balls is not as black and white as the rule book. It truly is an art and a skill that develops over time with good coaching and self evaluation. listening to coaches in a dugout or fans in the stands will only get a young umpire in trouble.

Very nice post Tim!

I certainly agree that “It would be impossible for a “human” umpire of quality to call the rule book strike zone”. There’s no human on the face of the earth that has the ability to make all the mental calculations necessary to call a pitch correctly and accurately in the amount of time given, and at he same time completely ignore the rest of the world. That’s why its called “judgment”.

However, just because we humans can’t do it, doesn’t mean its impossible, rather that its acceptable. ;-)

You’re also correct that the “experience” of seeing the differences between theory and reality in threads like this is pretty neat. It only adds to the knowledge base. No one is really right or wrong, but they should at least have the courage of their convictions and remain open to other possibilities.

Well said and written
 

This is a great post especially for a young umpire trying to move up the chain.

Strikes do make a difference in an umpire - and I'm not talking about the union etc.,

Thansk
David

As a young umpire, I enjoyed your post Tim. Just a few thoughts:

I don't have much of a problem staying consistent WITHIN a game. But I do have problems from game to game, even if the same league and teams are playing. Doubleheaders, with me on the plate for both games, would make me nervous for this reason.

An example: I had a game yesterday, 15 year old REC league, both pitchers were extremely good. Threw hard, and accurate. I took away the top of the zone a little bit, and was strict on the corners. Now if those pitchers had no clue how to pitch, I would have gone the other way.

This is basic umpiring, but I have a hard time determining which way I need to go before the game starts. And once it starts, I feel like I'm locked into that zone. Its hard to gradually change it without anyone taking exception (including myself).

Thoughts?

Game to game has nothing to do with it.

It's Pitcher to Pitcher, and even more importantly, Catcher to Catcher.

A Catcher that doesn't know what they are doing, can rob the best pitcher from getting the called strike.

When you feel like your having trouble with consistency, the first thing you do is check your own head. If nothing is in there but the game, no family or work issues, then look to the catcher. He/she is probably working in a way the makes it difficult to be consistent.

If the Catcher is doing a good job, once you have learned how a good Catcher looks, you probably have a Pitcher that is struggling. If they're not hitting there spots, throwing a lot of wild pitches, it is difficult.

The good news is, time will help you out with this.

How about this zone ?
 

The Micky Mouse Zone !

A 3-D Rectangle over the plate, with a mouse ear on each of the 4 corners.

Great for getting a slow moving game over with !

First, how many pitchers have good enough stuff to actually catch the strike zone and then break to the dirt in front of the catcher?
Second, if he did have that good of stuff why wouldn't you call it?

it's got nothing to do with the quality of the catcher everything to do with the quality of the pitch.
If a pitch is in the strike zone and breaks to the ankles catcher picks it clean, it seems to me that only fear of the offensive coach prevents the strike call.

So the simple fact is, you're saying out of fear you would not call a strike on a ball you admit hit the strike zone?

You don't know Tee very well if you think he's afraid of anything.

Perception is everything. If everyone in the park but you thinks a pitch is low, maybe you ought to change your perception.

Nothing to do with perception. He said a ball that catches the knee(i'm assuming over the plate) and then breaks to the dirt cannot be called a strike.
Are you suggesting we poll the audience before we make our calls?
I thought the ol umpire slogan was 'I call em the way I see em'

If everyone in the park thinks the hands are part of the bat, do I make my call based on there opinion?
If everyone in the park thinks a tie goes to the runner, do I make my call accordingly?
If everyone in the park thinks a foul tip is a foul ball should I rule foul ball?
I think you get my point.
Why should a pitch judged by you to have crossed the strike zone and picked cleanly by the catcher be called anything but a strike?
All things being equal, if you see a strike and call a ball you're a coward.

Hey NiUmp50:
 

I now know all I need to know about your umpire ability, the level of baseball you work and your believability.

It makes it easy for me to give your posts the interest they deserve.

Regards,

OK, when you start working games that are NOT on the small diamond, come back and tell us how your "philosophy" is working for you.

BTW, if a curve ball doesn't finish and the catcher doesn't stick the pitch, I don't see a strike and neither does anyone else. Well, except you.

Here's what I was taught.
 

See a Balk, Call a Balk.

See a Strike that looks like a Ball, call it a Ball. (because that's what everybody else saw)

Judgment is what officiating is all about. If you don't want to do it (make judgments that is), then don't do it (Officiate, that is)...Jedd Clampett

Apparently in your world, whoever has the loudest and most intimidating coach gets the calls.
Quite frankly i could care less what you think of me or my abilities. Any one too scared to call a strike a strike has shown me all i need to see about their character and believability.

Your clear lack of understanding of how the game works at higher levels is all I need to know about your experience and ability.

I believe in the old saw that calling balls and strikes takes 50% timing and 50% courage. And you definitely need the courage to call the high strike that the NCAA requires. Our local collegiate umpiring association evaluates each on calling the zone according to the NCAA emphasis points. So if an umpire resists the high strike because of the moans, groans, and *****ing, he will not be invited back for the next season. One of the reasons there still is residual *****ing over the high strikes is because some of the "old dogs" want more to be liked than good.

So in order to survive in the world in which I umpire, I call the high strike and get tough on the *****ing early and often. But I find that if it is called consistently for both sides, the complaining doesn't last past the third inning.

Other than that, kudos to Rich F. and T. Alan for telling it like it is. Perception is reality in the balls-and-strikes game, so the catcher must make the pitch look good. And the umpire who is courageous enough to call a lot of strikes is the one that moves up.

The one fastball that comes right down the middle but is dropped is a strike in my book. Anything on the corners that the catcher is flying out to get, and the glove keeps moving out after he catches the pitch. BALL! Catcher not up far enough and curveball in the dirt. BALL!

Consider it the penalty for allowing me to get hit on every ball in the dirt while that catcher is playing.

This isn't slow pitch softball. There isn't one high quality umpire I know that will call a hard breaking curve a strike if it's caught just off of the dirt. Not one! I don't care where it crosses, I'm not calling that crap a strike.



Tim.

Oh yes, the high strike. That one hasn't been a problem in my area. It's as simple as "The NCAA wants it, and I'm calling it." Really, most of the D3 coaches (that's all there is in my area, for the most part) are OK with it.

The problem most lower-level umpires face when "moving up" is being consistent on the knee. Higher level pitchers can throw darts at the knee and tracking and timing are crucial to getting that pitch and being consistent with it.

I won't ball a cockshot that gets dropped and I even called a strike on a pitch caught palm up yesterday that seemed to cross up the catcher. So it's not a hard and fast rule, but a good catcher can certainly buy a few strikes for his F1.

NI with all due respect:
 

You have kinda sorta defined yourself as a low level, little guy umpire.

Let me explain:

1) There are two types of umpires: a) by the book and b) and 'real world' umpires.

2) I don't expect you to agree.

3) Many of us work a pretty high quality of ball every day . . . trust us that we know what we speak of . . .

4) Once you work a higher level of ball, get back to us, as your opinon 'may' change.

5) I am not going to make an effort to change your thinking,

All-in-all, I work my level, under my guidelines, and find that my success is just fine.

Regards,

Rich,

I know this is a tad off subject, but when you say <I>Higher level pitchers can throw darts at the knee</I>, what are you really saying?

I’m not saying the higher level the P, that they aren’t more accurate!

I’ve been down this road with many an ump, player and coach from the LL(generic) to the ML, and even with a couple guy’s in the HOF, and the ability of P’s, even HOF P’s to actually hit spots has never been in doubt.

But what’s very much open to conjecture is, what a “spot” is, and what percentage of the time it can actually be hit.

So far, the only people I’ve found who believe hitting a “spot” is actually hitting the glove without it moving, and really believe it happens a high percentage of times, are very young and inexperienced.

More experienced people seem to consider “spots” as being approximately the size of a C’s mitt, or roughly a circle 15” in diameter.

I thought it was ridiculously huge until it was explained to me that a C’s mitt is about 15” across. If a ball hit dead center of the mitt, it would be perfect, but if the C had to move the mitt just 7-8” to get the ball, that’s still pretty darn good. So, 7-8” left/right/up/down would mean the pocket is pretty close to the outside edge of the original glove position, and that would make the circle roughly 15” across.

Accepting that as a “spot”, most of the more experienced people I’ve talked to seem to think a really accurate P like a Maddux, will still only be able to hit his “spot” at best maybe 70% of the time on a good day, which would make a pretty darn good college P maybe 50% accurate.

Is that what you consider “throwing darts”, are you finding something higher or lower as a good number, or is your meaning of “dart” something else entirely?

It's not what I meant. What I meant, really, was that pitchers throw pitches that start near the knee and finish near the knee and getting that pitch right is crucial.

My philosophy is really off the wall and unbelievable, hold onto your mask, I can't believe i'm even sharing this, well I realize i deserve the criticism of the elite of this forum, well geez I well here goes the philosphy of a lowly 7 and 8 yr old ump that can't even ump 80' ball. This is really hard here goes:
When i see a strike I call it phewww I did it. They say the first step in recovery is admitting your problem. Maybe if I stay on this formum for a couple years and learn from your most excellent advice I can get an assignment at the LL minors. Maybe if I go to the coaches and promise not to be contraversial, maybe then I could get to a bigger diamond.

I hope my confession helps younger umps that dream of doing 10 yr old travel. Please learn from my misguided and terrible philosophy.


I guess you prove that if you kiss enough behind you can work any level.
Lesson to all you young umps. Forget integrity, just be a brown noser.

Tim specifically said it catches the knee. He saw it. plain and simple.
now it's just a matter of having the courage of your conviction.

OK, you're not only stubborn, you've graduated all the way to stupid. Hello, "Ignore Poster."

The "spot" is what gets the batter out. If a higher level pitcher throws a fastball 3 inches outside on an 0-2 count it's because he meant to, not because he missed, so call it a ball. If he then throws one on the edge of the black outside, it's because he meant to, knowing that you will not call it 3 inches outside, so call it a strike.

The spot is a welled placed pitch, under a given situation.

so if a pitcher has the ability to throw such a pitch and spot it in the perfect position why would you call it crap? I call it talent and a damn good pitch.
Think through your reasoning
a pitch hits the strike zone and you don't call it.
Under normal circumstances I see only 2 possible reasons.
1. You're a lemming. If no one else is going to call a strike a strike neither am I. I'm following the crowd.
or
2. You're a coward. I want to appease the crowd and coaches. The ball is picked at the ankles and the path of least resistance is a called ball, despite the fact that i saw it catch the knee over the plate. I'm going to penalize the pitcher because I don't want to take the heat.

If there is another reason for calling it a ball please enlighten me.

***yawn***

OOPS! Sorry. ;-)

Could you explain a bit more about starting at the knee and finishing at the knee?

I'm trying to picture it but having difficulty.

As the cliche goes, in a fight between you and the world, back the world.

The game has evolved over more than 100 years, and the fundamental truths that Tim and Rich are conveying are the universally accepted standards of practice that are known and accepted by all, with the possible exception of the parents of a 7 year old in his first year of coach-pitch.

Rich and Tee umpire BASEBALL; it appears you are umpiring NIump50-ball.

The people you are calling "lemmings" and "cowards" are, in fact, people who respect the game. You clearly believe you are bigger than the game. You need a mentor.

That's about the best way I can explain it. It's a pitch that starts down in the zone and stays down in the zone and if you're lazy, you'll give up on it and ball it. This is a strike, unlike that pitch caught at the ankles.

In the real world there are cowards, brown nosers, lemmings, pretenders, con men, men of integrity and law abiding citizens. We all choose our own path.

Good, because I don't

See a strike call a ball. Give me one good reason that has some integrity.

When my backbone becomes mush my opinion may change.


I never questioned your success. I simply questioned your statement that a ball over the plate at the knee that ends up in the dirt cannot be a strike.
You were adament about it.
You make sure you talk about the level of ball you ump every post, but I've yet to hear the justification of your statement.
Please tell me why a ball in the strike zone cannot be called a strike.

When was the last time you saw a 7 year old with stuff that starts at the knee and ends up near the ankles?
It's not 7 year old stuff we're talking about.

I call a strike on a pitch I clearly see pass thru the strike zone and I'm disrespecting the game? Somethings wrong with this picture.
If it was a universally accepted and fundamental truth, why is it not written down? Why, in the past 100 years has some one not thought about putting this in the rules. "If a curve ball passes thru the strike zone, but has great movement and drops to the ankles, such pitch shall not be declared a strike"
Usually fundamental truths get written down. When something becomes universally accepted it gets adopted in the rules.
Please give me the rational behind a ball passing thru the zone being called a ball.

I surely won’t argue, but your opinion about how accurately a P can throw a ball is vastly different than what I’ve seen or been told. No biggie.

Can I assume that where the C is seeing up is having an effect on your call? FI, if the C set up inside on that 2nd pitch it’d be a ball.

Now that I can picture and understand. Thanx!

I sure hope you guys understand that I’m not just doin’ this rile anyone. I’m truly interested in finding out why things work the way they do, and its exchanges like this thread that help do that. I’ve just never been one of those guys who takes, <B>"IT IS WHAT IT IS"</B> for an answer, without some kind of reasonable explanation.

Along these same lines, if anyone’s ever had the dubious pleasure of being “graded” by QuesTec”, I’d sure like to know exactly what the purpose of the thing is, and what exactly it is that you see when you throw the DVD in the player.

I’d also be curious to know how it would “score” one of those pitches that seems to be bringing out such angst. I.e., a pitch that crosses the zone at the bottom and front of the plate, but hits the dirt in front of the C.

If the pitcher can't hit the spot then there is no spot. And hell yes, how the catcher catches it is a factor. If he is set up inside and the pitch is on the black outside, it's a ball. The spot is where you and the catcher expect it to be, and when it ain't, well it ain't.

I called a 2-0 game yesterday with 2 pitcher's who went the distance for their team. Both were hitting the spots, the game lasted 1:40 and I heard no complaints from anyone about balls and strikes, because when they hit the spot and I called a strike and when they didn't it was because they were trying to get the batter to swing at one that was not on the spot. Sometimes they swing at a pitch off the spot, and sometimes they don't. I only called one K looking and he walked off before I made the call, because he knew...

3. Because that is the way it is done when working shaving age players. There. That is the other reason. Neither one of the other two reasons you listed are applicable.

The only pitcher I've ever umpired with a good enough curve to call a strike if it hit the dirt was Barry Zito, and his catcher knew enough to pick it clean and not allow it to hit the ground!

I'm asking a legit question. Why?

"because" doesn't usually suffice as a knowledgable answer.
When you were taught this undeniable truth that if a pitch clearly passes thru the strike zone but breaks to the dirt it must be called a ball
Did you ask why?
And was the answer "because"
Where is the fairness in calling a ball clearly seen in the strike zone a ball?

Why do you reward the batter when the pitcher makes a great pitch?

Yea there is.

Because when I see it hit the dirt, I see a ball. It has nothing to do with everyone else in the park. It has everything to do with me seeing a ball. So I call it how I see it.

I don't see strikes when the ball hits the dirt. I call them how I see them. You see it differently. I have guidelines for a strike that are different from yours.

So accept diversity, and act like an adult.

You just call strikes where you see them. You don't have to listen to any of the experienced umpires that roam this board. What do any of us know right?

The fact that some umpires on the board call upper level ball doesn't mean a thing....what do we know. Don't listen to us, we are obviously doing things wrong and are cowards plus we lack integrity.

If you want to call pitches in the dirt strikes you go right ahead. In fact why don't you call some pitches up around the arm pits strikes too.

What level ball do you work and where do you work? I'd love to come see you work.....maybe I'd learn what it's like to have integrity and courage. :)

If the pitcher had spotted the pitch in a perfect position it wouldn't have been handled near the dirt by the catcher. A good battery knows this and will work with each other, as well as us to "prove" the pitch. I'll tell you what, the CWS from Omaha will be televised soon. Why don't you watch those games and tell us how many pitches breaking down into the dirt are being called strikes. Hell, they won't even give the pitcher a strike if the catcher turns his glove over to handle the pitch.

You're darn right I'm following the crowd. The crowd of individuals I'm following are the traditionalists in baseball officiating who are calling the game as it's intended. The players and the coaches of both teams know that no competent umpire will call that crap a strike in a game played by players over 13 years of age. Why do you feel you're larger than the established tradition of the game?


A coward? Maybe, but a coward who understands his place in the game. I'm not going to allow my game to turn into a $hit$torm because I'm calling my strike zone as something they're not accustomed to seeing. Game management 101. When you start calling games for coaches who are paid to coach, and players looking for scholarships you'll come to understand this. Hell, high school is the highest level of ball I work, and the guys you're arguing with work even higher levels than that. They didn't get to that level by inserting themselves into the game.


Tim.

Because it's not the way "anyone" wants the game called. It's part of the "art" of calling strikes, not part of the "science" of calling strikes. The "science" part can be written, the "art" part can't.

It's similar to the "high strike" in MLB. For years, no one called it, and "no one" wanted it called. Umpires were graded down if they did call it.

But, times change, and now they want it called, and umpires are graded on it, and it is called.

So, too, may the time come when a curve that catches the knee and ends up at the ankle be called a strike. And, since change doesn't happen in all areas and for all umpires at the same time, the change may already be happening in your area. For most of us, though, any such change is not here.

Because it is the “accepted practice” as I would call it. There are plenty of things in sports and life that, although they don’t jib with the rules, are the “accepted practice”.

A perfect example would be the ‘neighborhood play” at second base in MLB. According to the rules, the pivot man must be touching the base with the ball to get the out, but the “accepted practice” is that the pivot man just be in the area of second base with the ball to get the out. It is the same thing as the ball in the dirt. Sure, technically, it was probably a strike, but the “accepted practice” at the high school level, if not lower, and on up is that a pitch in the dirt or scooped just off the dirt is going to get called a ball.

OK: how about - YOU are the ONLY person, on or off the field who will believe that you called that pitch a strike? Everyone else, probably including the kid who threw it, and definitely including the kid that caught it, will see a pitch that hits the ground before it gets to F2 as a ball. The D coach will not ***** [until you call that a strike on HIS batter], but he'll figgure you missed one in his favor.

Bob, how about "The Art of Calling Pitches". It's part of a series of booklets that have been publish and sell quite well (one guess as to who wrote them).

Now, let me say this;

60' Diamond or 90' Diamond with 13 YRO - See a Strike, Call a Strike.

90' Diamond with 14 YRO and up - See a Strike that looks like a Ball, Call a Ball.

This is what is expected of an umpire, even if that is not what an umpire expects to do. It's not really our choice, it's how the game is played.

If you don't like this philosophy, that's OK, just stay at the 13 YRO level and down, and you will do well, and be well. The game needs great umpires at all levels.

I rarely do 13 or younger but i'll keep it in mind.
I was always taught- See a strike call a strike-and whenever you can, steal a strike.
What's the point in stealing a strike if you're going to give it back on the next pitch?
I hear what you're saying, I just don't agree with the philosophy.
The nieghborhood play was probably prevalent at the HS level years ago, but less and less these days, especially with FPSR.
Things change. Most all curve balls that end up in the dirt never enter the strike zone. On the rare occasion it does, it's obvious the pitcher has a special curve. I have no problems selling that strike because the coaches see the stuff on the ball as well as me. If they don't like it I'm not very concerned.
On only the rarest of occasions will I pass on a legitimate strike.
On very close pitches when the catcher doesn't stick it, and I'm not sure if it caught the corner I certainly ball it.
If I clearly see the pitch in the strike zone I don't care what the catcher does as long as he keeps it off me.

Thanks for the dialog
 

This thread has helped me, a second-year ump, understand my strike zone tremendously. So thank you, buckweat and NIump50 for asking the questions. I appreciate your courages. And thank you to Rich Fronheiser, BigUmp56, Tim C, nickrego and others for their experienced viewpoint.

The catch affecting the call sounds like part of the "make the expected call even if it conflicts with the black-letter rule" philosophy that is hard to accept at first. I don't see it clearly yet, but I'm starting to, having digested Jim Porter's Ten Unwritten Rules of Calling Balls and Strikes. It sounds like the big dogs take make-the-expected-call for granted. Is it that the oral traditiion fleshes out the rule skeleton?

I use the ovoid bullet strike zone. I'm cutting my teeth on mustangs and broncos (9/10s and 11/12s), where four balls equals a double or a triple, due to ease of stealing. The defined strike zone is knee hollow to nipples, but I'll expand it a ballswidth or two middle high and middle out, and half to a full ballswidth middle low and middle in, depending on the skill level. I can't articlulate my corner calls just yet, but I'm working on it. But PU's can't rely on many F2's at that level to help make calls. I try hardest to be consistent.

Paul:
 

I think perhaps that you have identified the issue we all deal with one day:

As noted there are "black letter rule" guys and "usage and tradition guys."

I have found over the years on the internet that "black letter rules guys" take great umbrage to the "real world" guys. The inverse does not seem to be true.

NIUmp50 has been painted as unreasonable. It may seem that on the surface but his points need to be considered. The question soon becomes: "gee, what other rules do you guys ignore."

My answer: "Several." Remember I am a guy that only calls balks that EVERYONE sees . . . I select to ignore technical balks.

This is what separates great umpires (i.e. those that get the "Big Game" assignments) and those that twist in the land of also-ran games.

But that is just my view. I am sure that NIUmp50 gets just as many important games as I do . . . we just see umpiring differently.

I know of NO UMPIRE in shaving aged games that would call a strike that bounces into the catcher's mitt. None.

Perhaps NIUmp50 works in a region where this is a common occurance.

It is just too obvious from the posts in this thread that the view professed by umpires like myself appears, on first blush, to be what is accepted universally.

Except of course, in games viewed by "black letter law" umpires.

This is all just opinion and I hope you can separate the chaf and learn something from the thread.

Regards,

I think you're painting with a wide brush.
I grew up in baseball as a pitcher, my two sons are accomplished pitchers.
I have a soft spot for pitchers. On this particular issue, I choose not to punish a great pitch for the sake of making the expected call, instead I see by rule, a strike, and call it.
So on this issue I am a 'black letter ump', as I am on the FPSR.
Many other rules like the balks I'm more 'real world', another example is the phantom tag. When a fielder makes a quick tag move and pulls up to avoid the spikes I usually give the out even if he misses the tag.
There's HS umps out there still today that are so 'real world' they refuse to enter the 21st century and call FPSR. They're still stuck on OBR.
So if I differ from the pack on one issue and on that issue I am within the rules, does that make me a bad umpire? Should I not be allowed on the field with kids that shave?
Being black letter is not always a bad thing. After all we are umpires not rules makers.

Oh, and regarding this statement:


Please go back and reread the thread.
#24 my first opinion of the subject. I was only giving my opinion no umbrage taken. No personal attacks and no inferences about those who differ from my opinion.
#35 You say "no umpire of quality" could call a ball in the dirt a strike.
You took 'umbrage' and attacked my 'black letter' interpretation of the strike zone and inferred I could not be a quality ump.
How can you maintain credibility and make statements like the above quote?

He's right, Tee. You should have said "no quality umpire working games beyond 60' kiddie ball" will call that pitch a strike.


That's what you get for becoming a kinder gentler Tee these days. Offer up an olive branch and have it thrown back at you.


Tim.

Even the wisest and most honored amongst us need to be held accountable for their words.
Wouldn't you agree?



A young newlywed was preparing a pot roast for her new husband.
As she began her preparation her husband watched her cut 2" off both ends of the roast and asked "Why did you cut the ends off the roast"
She replied "that's what you do to a roast" he says "why" she, a bit aggrevated now says "because". "Because why" her husband says irritably.
"Because that's the way my Mom taught me" she said finally. "Why did she cut the ends off?" he says with frustration. "I don't know" she replied a bit bashfully, "let's call her and find out". So they call Mom. "Mom" says the beautifl newlywed, "why do we cut the ends off the roast". Mom, a bit surprised by the question is silent for a moment. "mom you there?" "Yes dear" mom finally says. "so why do we cut the ends off?" "Because" was all mom could say. Now the husband starts to laugh and says "Mom, there has to be a reason". "That's the way your Grandma taught me honey and that's the way i taught you, maybe you should call grandma and ask her"
So they make the call to grandma.
"Grandma, why do we cut the ends off the roast?"
Grandma very matter of factly says "I have to cut off the ends for it to fit in my small pan"

So is an answer " because that's the way it is" necessarily a valid one?
Someone started the practice of not calling a curveball that passes thru the zone but ends up near the dirt a ball. There was a beginning to this 'accepted practice'
Why did they do it? Could it be that in the 1800s the umps were just there to make the expected call?

Maybe no pitcher back then was capable of throwing a curve that could actually be a strike and end up in the dirt. So any pitch in the dirt was an easy ball call. It became accepted as absolute, but when pitchers evolved and got better maybe the umps never did. Maybe the game went beyond the umpires ability. Maybe they just got lazy.
If any of this is the case, does it justify the call today? Does the newlywed have to waste 4" of roast just because grandma did?
Just asking.

Do you really think that you are going to convince anyone to start calling pitches in the dirt strikes? I'm not going to do it no matter how many pot roast stories you come up with.

Speaking of pot roasts, if my grandma said cut 4" off the roast then start cutting. She was the best cook I've ever known. Hey wait, maybe these pot roast cutting umpires, I mean the cowards that won't call pitches in the dirt strikes, might be the best umpires you've ever seen...watch them and learn :rolleyes:

Hehehe
 

"Real Umpires" (tm) don't call strikes that bounce in the dirt.

Nuff' said . . . NIUmp50 gets it -- he's just chasing wind mills.

I tried.

Regards,

Well, I guess high school kids are the only ones able to throw those types of curveballs because I have never, ever seen an umpire in college, minors or the pros call a pitch in the dirt a strike no matter how much it broke.

I guess then that you call the opposite pitch a ball? That’s curve that hits the catcher’s mitt when he is set up right in the middle of the zone. I mean, if he can break it off enough to be above the knees and in the dirt when it reaches the catcher, then if it’s right in the middle of the zone or maybe a little of the top half of the zone when caught, it was probably high when it entered the zone. Or is that one of those strikes you try to “steal”.

Called a travel-team game last night, good pitchers on both sides. F2 sets up tight inside, almost completely closes the slot. Fastball goes way outside, nicks the outside corner but F2 has to lurch way over to snag it and he almost falls to his knees.

"Ball!"


"aaaah, Blue, he crossed me up."

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I've offered my opinion and explained why I call it the way I do. I've asked those with different opinions why.
So far I've got "because" and because that's the way Grandpa did it.


It has nothing to do...... never mind, if I have to explain the point of the story it's obvious the skull is a bit too thick.

Actually I have absolutely no problem with it being called a ball. Most all umpires have slightly different zones, and none of them affect me. You can call a cockshot a ball if the catcher has his head cocked the wrong way for all I care. (Unless I'm your P, then I prefer not to be on the bases for 3 1/2 hours)

This forum is set up to share opinions, that's what I did. It's also set up to ask questions. That's what I did. The answers have been revealing.
What's been more revealing is the judgements made against me for not following a tradition that no one has a clue why it started.

Look, if I had to conform to the crowd on this issue to get high level games then I would have to make a decision, if I decided to make that change at least I would know why I was doing it. BTW, it's never come to that.

Also, BTW, if you've never been true to the strike zone on this issue, how do you know what reaction, or lack thereof you'll get and how do you know what assignments you will or won't get?

If you grow up only hearing what sex with a girl is like from a bunch of gay guys then you might not ever have a desire to try it. You may even make judgements and accusations upon those who are enjoying such activities, never realizing how wrong you really are.

"True to the strike zone?"



"Well, Smitty, how was your game today?"
"Not so good, Wally, I feel like I betrayed the strike zone." :D

Wow
 

This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about.

2) If you are going to call this pitch expect (2) things.
A) Ejections
B) You are not coming back to that park and/or conference.

Higher level games are "perception", Like it or nor that is the way it is. This is the "accepted" way to call the game. Like the "neighborhood" call or the swipe tag is the "accepted" way to call the game.

In the game of baseball there are numerous unwritten rules.
1) Large lead, no stealing or bunts.
2) Pitcher will protect batters and fielders.
3) No showing anyone up.
etc.
etc.

The other thing to think about is your partner you are working with. If you are calling that pitch a strike (the one and only time you are at that park) be prepared for your partner to call the assignor and say "no way am I working with him again" because the job you are doing reflects on you and your partner and you will bring him into this circus.

The rule book is black and white but you have to understand how the game is played and why it is played that way. There are plenty of things that will happen if you are looking for a sh**storm. Don't cause one by picking to call pitches that are down at ground level.

What's all the fuss with GD stance and locking in good head position and all that crap. Heck, I can have all the movement I want, I just have to see the position of the catchers mitt. That's pretty easy. I don't need to see the pitch cross the plate. Apparently I'm only there to judge mitt location and style.
I'll give you a 5 for mitt location but only a 3 for style. BALL 1
Mitt location good give you a 7 but oh you missed the ball and it hit me 1 for style Ball 2
Great breaking pitch ahh sorry palms up Ball 3
You expected that 2 seamer on the inside not on the outside corner didn't you? shame shame Ball 4

And just who taught you this?
 

Just got around to reading this thread and that is the most unrealistic post I've seen in a while.

Steal a strike? If you're calling balls in the dirt you're not only stealing them, you're giving them away.

Comments from most of my games - "come on **** (F2's name), you catch that ball and its a strike. (Close pitches that F2 misses or drops)

Sometimes coaches know the reality of baseball better than umpires.

Thanks
David

I've watched my sons play high level ball for years, I've seen many a ump call fastball strikes 2-4" below the knees. Is that an unwritten part of the strike zone?
A fastball comes in 3" below the knees it's called a strike and if he's consistent with that call very little is said. Now a curve ball comes in at the knees and if you call it a strike you're an idiot and no coach will ever have you back.
Where's the integrity?

Lol
 

You are amazing. 2" below the knees huh. The ball is 2-1/4" wide so that is a callable pitch. 4" below the knees is a "BALL". Like I said it's perception.

I never called you an "idiot". I never questioned your "integrity". I don't know you.

I don't give a damn if you call the "wormburner" pitch a strike or not because I don't work with you. If you want to call it then call it. Hope it works out for ya.

I get assignments because I am consistent and call the game the way it is meant to be played the one thing I can say is that the college assignments I get (D-1, 2, 3 and JUCO) is because of my integrity, consistency, mechanics and game management.

Now that's funny:D

Now I'm a thick headed gay man? You were doing better when grandma was cutting 4" off the pot roast.

It's obvious from your post that you do very low level "baby ball". Nothing at all wrong with that I enjoy doing those youth games sometimes too, but the strike zone is different. The zone I call for 10 year olds is not the same as for players in their 20's+.

Bottom line is simple....if you want to call strikes that you observe caught the lower limit of the "true strike zone" and end up in the dirt then do it. But I can assure you that any assignor looking at you for higher level games will not be thrilled. You need to learn that IF you want to advance up in the umpire ranks you will call the game they way it is expected.....

So my answer to your question "Why call the pitches in the dirt balls?" Because that's the accepted way of doing it, it's what every one expects & wants, and it's what you'll be evaluated on. Is it the right things to do? Based on this you bet.....

Finally, I have tried to "be true to the strike zone", as you call it, and had the worst game of my life..... Both sides hated my zone, the fans hated my zone, the guy from my association observing me hated my zone, my assignor hated my zone, Even my dog bit me for calling those pitches caught in the dirt strikes.

If the top of the ball is at the bottom of the zone it's considered in the zone, I know that and you know that. So if I say the pitch was 2-4" below it stands to reason I meant the top of the ball was 2-4" below.
If you want to find fault find it in reality, don't be making so many assumptions.

If you thought I was calling you gay I'm sorry, not my intention.
Just another way to illustrate the point I thought you missed the first time.

BINGO!!

We sometimes call pitches we clearly see in the strike zone balls because we want to appease coaches and spectators. Assignors want to appease coaches and ADs. So if we appease the coach we appease the assignor.
Many times it has nothing to do with the quality of pitch and everything to do with what the coach expects. Conflict avoidance while stepping up the ladder of success. It can't get much better than that.

I think this is a good honest answer to why.
Finally someone had the balls to call it the way it is. No pun intended.

Nothing wrong, IMO, with an appeasement philosophy, however it can become a slippery slope.
But I think a mixture of tough talk amongst ourselves and on the field appeasement may keep us on the upper half of the slope.

for real it's different? you never know what you'll learn here.

I think the appeasement philosophy may play a part in this.
10 yr old coaches and players don't bite quite as hard as the big boys, therefore less need for appeasement.

Well, first off....all that talk about pot roast made me hungry!

Secondly, NIump50:

I think everyone understood your point in telling the Grandma's Pot Roast story. We don't have "thick skulls."

Third:

If the top of the baseball is 2-4 inches below the knees, it's a BALL!!! If umpires were calling that pitch a strike, then they have f***** up strike zones!

Fourth:

Please spare us the analogies about learning of sex with girls from homosexuals.

Fifth:

Quit trying to convince us to call ugly pitches that hit the dirt between the plate and the catcher STRIKES!!!

I remember back in the 80's calling a pitch like that a strike in a big Varsity game with two of the top teams playing. It was a dandy breaking ball that hit the bottom of the zone and just missed landing on home plate. I was nearly laughed off the field, and took a bunch of sarcastic remarks for doing it. I never did it again.

How do you deal with all the crap you must take calling these pitches strikes?