More confrentation issues...

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Yes, the ball is not passing through the zone at 95 mph. But it has the same reaction time for the batter as 95mph. If you disagree with that, then I'll do some simple algebra for you.

If you believe that, you need remedial math.

First of all, balls do not have reaction time, batter's do. But, go ahead, Mr. Wizard, educate this poor soul on how a ball traveling at 65 MPH through the strike zone offers a batter the same time to react as does a ball traveling 95 mph.

Of course, what you are referring to is the line you hear on TV about the amount of time the ball takes from the pitcher's hand to the plate. But this is not the "reaction time."

You may be a wonderful third year LL umpire. But with your current mindset, that's exactly where you will be three years hence.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Yes, the ball is not passing through the zone at 95 mph. But it has the same reaction time for the batter as 95mph. If you disagree with that, then I'll do some simple algebra for you.

Is this what you do when you walk on the field - use algebraic equations to figure the strike zone for today? Just get in there and start calling strikes!

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I've called 3 years of ball now, and have called that high strike for plenty of games, and gotten alot of crap for it, both from fellow umpires, assignors, coaches and players.

Three years, huh? Sonny, I've got a rash from my jock that is older than that. Who gives a darn about the crap? When you set the zone, that is the zone. When they start crying, you have to start dumping!

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Nobody is happy when I call it, and it just creates headaches. I don't care what coaches/players/fans think, but I do care what evaluators and fellow umpires think.

If your evaluators and assigners are breaking your balls over a letter high strike to 12 year olds, then guess who needs to be replaced?

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

So I choose not to call it. I'm surprised to find out so many umpires would call such a high zone.

Stupid move. You start with the zone for the level of ball you are doing. You cannot call an MLB zone to LL players - plain and simple. We've been explaining that to you, but you will not listen! Now before you answer, pick up a LL rule book, a FED rule book, and NCAA rule book and then the OBR. Look at and compare the strike zones in each (Section 2). Use your algebra if needed to figure out the top end of the zone. Then you may come back to us with an informed answer, Sonny!

[Tim C]

I have no idea if you are attempting to pull our collective leg or not.

All levels from MLB down through high school have made it obvious in the last four years that they want the "high strike" called . . .

Someone here mentioned the sternum . . . many of my partners talk of "below the elbows" . . . some use the bottom edge of lettering on the uniform top.

NONE of the umpires I work with call the "OLD" strike zone of barely above the belt.

We have worked hard at making the changes that the game requires and decision such as yours set "the next umpire" that works your teams up for failure.

Please, leave faulty science for the "Mythbusters" and call the game as it is meant to be called.

Regards,

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If you believe that, you need remedial math.

First of all, balls do not have reaction time, batter's do. But, go ahead, Mr. Wizard, educate this poor soul on how a ball traveling at 65 MPH through the strike zone offers a batter the same time to react as does a ball traveling 95 mph.

Of course, what you are referring to is the line you hear on TV about the amount of time the ball takes from the pitcher's hand to the plate. But this is not the "reaction time."

Garth, Garth, Garth... why the hostility?

I think we can all agree that we all call the accepted or expected strike zone. This zone is different in all areas of the country and is also different at different levels of play. While I agree that in LL, the zone should be much bigger than in big boy ball, your ideas of reaction time are just plain wrong!

A 95 mph fastball is traveling 139.333 ft/sec. From a distance of 60.5 ft, the batter has about .434 seconds to react and hit the ball.

A 65 mph fastball is traveling 95.333 ft/sec. From a distance of 46 ft, the batter has about .483 seconds to react and hit the ball.

This is not the batters "reaction time" but it is the amount of time the batter has to react to the pitch.

I concede that the MLB fastball is traveling through the zone faster, but both pitches reach the zone at almost the same time, a difference of .049 seconds.

You seem to have a lot of good information to share. But you also seem to get annoyed easily when someone disagrees with you. Then you proceed to belittle and brow-beat. That's a shame.

[TussAgee11]

If ya'll are so convinced that it is best to call that midpoint between shoulders and belt a strike, then I'll call it.

I know the rulebook says it, I just thought it was accepted by umpires to not call it. One of those things that we just don't call.

Like I said, I've rarely seen my partner go as high as that midpoint, especially doing the upper level ball of that particular age group, which I was referring to (U trip has some pretty good ball).

But now I'm in the prediciment of being the guy with one of the highest zones (that I have seen). Should I be worried about that.

I'm not "not listening" to what you all are saying. I'm just trying to understand it and question it so you can provide me with the answers that will get me to believe it, that's all. I want feedback, thanks for giving it to me. Just cause I ask more questions and play devil's advocate doesn't mean I'm stupid or that I am a bad umpire or that I am not listening.

As for Garth, well, CtBlue did the math for me, so I won't have to.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

But now I'm in the prediciment of being the guy with one of the highest zones (that I have seen). Should I be worried about that?

Well, one of the largest (widest) strike zones in recorded LL history made it all the way to the LLWS this year, so what's to worry about?

12 YO batters should not be 'working walks', as a general rule. I hesitate to say 'make 'em swing the bat', cuz you aren't MAKING them do anything, but their mindset should be in that direction. 2 or 3 batters walk on a MLB-size strike zone, and then *every* subsequent batter keeps his bat on his shoulder. Not good.

I recommend that anything at the lower part/half of the uniform logo should be the top of your zone. Just my opinion.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LMan

I hesitate to say 'make 'em swing the bat', cuz you aren't MAKING them do anything, but their mindset should be in that direction.

You may not be able to make them swing the bat, but your strike zone should certainly suggest the hell out of it!

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You may not be able to make them swing the bat, but your strike zone should certainly suggest the hell out of it!

LMAO.....

[LMan]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You may not be able to make them swing the bat, but your strike zone should certainly suggest the hell out of it!

\


usually after 2 called strikes, the coach (s) and parents suggest it for me

"what ya waiting for, son?!?!"

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

And how many MLB umpires call a midpoint between the shoulders and belt a strike?

How many good umpires really call it a strike? Belly button, maybe, but when you start getting into the mid point between shoulders and belt with kids that can throw 65-70 from 50 feet, it should be a ball. Its the equivlent to 90-95 at 60 feet, where the umpires call it a ball.

So what makes this any different?

And don't go calling me a troll.

And how many MLB players did you have in that game?
What makes this different is that these are 12 year-olds, and even their coaches want 'em to swing the d@mn bat.
Rule book says this is a strike, both sides want it [when they're in the field], and NO-ONE will pi$$ and moan if you call it: so what, exactly is the justification for it "ought" to be a ball?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

As for Garth, well, CtBlue did the math for me, so I won't have to.

I know the math, and as CT pointed out, I also know the difference between reaction time and total pitch time.

You'd do well to deal with reality and forget what you hear during the broadcast of the LLWS.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

Garth, Garth, Garth... why the hostility?

I think we can all agree that we all call the accepted or expected strike zone. This zone is different in all areas of the country and is also different at different levels of play. While I agree that in LL, the zone should be much bigger than in big boy ball, your ideas of reaction time are just plain wrong!

A 95 mph fastball is traveling 139.333 ft/sec. From a distance of 60.5 ft, the batter has about .434 seconds to react and hit the ball.

A 65 mph fastball is traveling 95.333 ft/sec. From a distance of 46 ft, the batter has about .483 seconds to react and hit the ball.

This is not the batters "reaction time" but it is the amount of time the batter has to react to the pitch.

I concede that the MLB fastball is traveling through the zone faster, but both pitches reach the zone at almost the same time, a difference of .049 seconds.

You seem to have a lot of good information to share. But you also seem to get annoyed easily when someone disagrees with you. Then you proceed to belittle and brow-beat. That's a shame.

No hostility, just complete frustration with someone who allegedly has skill and potential but absolutely no common sense or feel for the game.

It's just a verbal slap up against the side of the head and a loud "wake up you idiot, you're supposed to better than this."

Or, maybe his mentor was mistaken. I hope not.

[David B]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

But now I'm in the prediciment of being the guy with one of the highest zones (that I have seen). Should I be worried about that.

Yes if in your level of ball and area you have a higher zone than everyone else you probably need to talk about it with your group of umpires.

Consistency is what matters the most. (and its also important in a grouop of umpires that are calling a particular league)

And that's what players and coaches remember.

I'm not in the habit of calling a high strike, but in every game that I call after a couple of innings i hear no complaints - just he hasn't called that all night so don't expect it now etc.,

Thanks
David

[DG]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If ya'll are so convinced that it is best to call that midpoint between shoulders and belt a strike, then I'll call it.

I know the rulebook says it, I just thought it was accepted by umpires to not call it. One of those things that we just don't call.

Like I said, I've rarely seen my partner go as high as that midpoint, especially doing the upper level ball of that particular age group, which I was referring to (U trip has some pretty good ball).

But now I'm in the prediciment of being the guy with one of the highest zones (that I have seen). Should I be worried about that.

Stand facing a mirror. Take your right hand and grasp your left elbow and then take your left hand and grasp your right elbow. Any pitch across the plate below your arms in this position is a strike, all age groups. That's a high strike and according to Ted Williams he would bat .350 if you consistently threw him that pitch. At the belly button and one ball above or below he would bat .400. So you are cheating the pitcher to not call this a strike?