Your Zone

[lawump]

If Ed Montague can take play after play at first base from about 5-feet away from the base...and consistently get them right play-after-play without being "fooled" (to the amazement of some of his MLB brothers...which I can state as a fact)...then I can assure you: he's not being "fooled" by a catcher.

[canadaump6]

I agree that he probably was not fooled, but rather saw that the catcher's glove move 17 inches to the other side of the plate, and that is why he decided to "ball" the pitch. My problem with such a practice is that it is hard enough to call a consistent strikezone regardless of how the catcher catches it. Now add in the variable of how the catcher catches the ball, along with where the ball was, and things could get pretty variable and subjective. What used to be a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not" now becomes a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not, how did the catcher catch it, now combine both those variables and come up with a decision as to whether it is a ball or strike". I can't imagine anyone being able to combine both those variables and still call a consistent game. That is why I don't pay too much attention to the catcher, unless of course he makes one really ugly looking lunge at a pitch that was a tad off the plate anyways.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I agree that he probably was not fooled, but rather saw that the catcher's glove move 17 inches to the other side of the plate, and that is why he decided to "ball" the pitch. My problem with such a practice is that it is hard enough to call a consistent strikezone regardless of how the catcher catches it. Now add in the variable of how the catcher catches the ball, along with where the ball was, and things could get pretty variable and subjective. What used to be a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not" now becomes a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not, how did the catcher catch it, now combine both those variables and come up with a decision as to whether it is a ball or strike". I can't imagine anyone being able to combine both those variables and still call a consistent game. That is why I don't pay too much attention to the catcher, unless of course he makes one really ugly looking lunge at a pitch that was a tad off the plate anyways.

OK, next time the catcher calls for a pitchout, and the pitcher thinks he called for a fastball on the inside corner, and you get drilled on the elbow with that fastball on the inside corner, I want you to make sure that you CALL IT A STRIKE!

[canadaump6]

I haven't had that happen before, but I have called a hitter out on strike three when the catcher stood up and the pitcher missed his glove so that the pitch happened to nick the outside corner of the plate at thigh level. Looked like a good pitch to me, and not a single person complained.

[Al]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I haven't had that happen before, but I have called a hitter out on strike three when the catcher stood up and the pitcher missed his glove so that the pitch happened to nick the outside corner of the plate at thigh level. Looked like a good pitch to me, and not a single person complained.

How about this one canadaump...Shortest kid on the team stands as far up in the batters box as possible. By the time two pitched balls passed over the plate they were only a few inches above it and were called strikes. I asked the umpire after the game (softball tournament F/P 11/U) why he called those pitches strikes. He said because they were at her knees when they passed her from where she was standing in the box. He said it didn't matter where the ball was when it actually passed over the plate! Lot's of people complained that those pitches were low. I suppose if the ball was at her eyes and settled in the strike zone when going over the plate he would have called it a ball because of where it passed her. Oh well!

[canadaump6]

Oh I had a good one in my second year umpiring. I noticed that the guy who was doing the plate missed a few pitches that were clearly over the outside part of the plate. Called them a ball when they were clearly a strike. Later that game, I come to him between innings, and in the course of our conversation he casually mentions that "the strikezone is not defined by the plate, it is defined by how far from the plate the batter is standing". So a pitch over the outside corner would be a ball with him if the hitter was standing almost out of the box, but if he was crowding the plate that pitch would be a strike.