Gray Area Strikes

[tballump]

Thanks for the pictures for the young guys. Now, would most people on this forum believe it is OK to expand the the inside and outside pitch to include the black part of the plate? I believe that would expand the zone in the pictures 1 inch on both sides. In other words, if "any" part of the ball hits "any" part of the "black" on either side, it would be called a strike. Although, by definition this is incorrect, would this come under the category of having too wide (liberal) a strike zone, and would it be acceptable to call this pitch a strike at all levels of play, including MLB with or without questec?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

So you never call a high strike or almost at the top of the zone...Dude your really missing alot of pitches...and who cares if the batters hit them out... its not our job to worry about where the batters hit them. We should call the zone.

Sorry, I'm old school. I don't care about the hitters either. In fact, I don't like rats, period. Plus, as I said, you get your a$s handed to you here for calling them too high. "Get it down, Blue!" is a common phrase in the highly competitive atmosphere here. Nobody likes the high zone, nobody wants it called, from the commissioner's office on down. It's not how we roll. At least not through the 2005 season, which is the latest I can comment about. The old "belly button to the bottom of the knee with a wide corner" is still the preferred zone around these parts. Call high strikes and wind up scratched by the top schools.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tip184

My opinions on calling balls and strikes:

-Width: Do not make it wider than 1 ball more than the plate including the black. So either call a ball off the plate on the inside corner, or a ball off the plate on the outside corner, but not both.

Disagree. If you give more room on the outside, the batter will crowd the plate and (a) it will be harder to see the inside pitch and (b) you'll have more hbp (did he make an attempt to avoid?) to deal with.

Give the same amount in-and-out, imo. the exact amount depends on the level and the expectations of the league.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Sorry, I'm old school. I don't care about the hitters either. In fact, I don't like rats, period. Plus, as I said, you get your a$s handed to you here for calling them too high. "Get it down, Blue!" is a common phrase in the highly competitive atmosphere here. Nobody likes the high zone, nobody wants it called, from the commissioner's office on down. It's not how we roll. At least not through the 2005 season, which is the latest I can comment about. The old "belly button to the bottom of the knee with a wide corner" is still the preferred zone around these parts. Call high strikes and wind up scratched by the top schools.

Perhaps it has changed in the past couple of years (I thought you had retired?).

I know it has changed here and at the NCAA level -- call more "high" strikes

[Tim C]

Bob:

Here in Oregon the two key members of our state training crew both work PAC-10 and WCC schedules.

They are told to call the "high" strike.

The "olden days" of calling anything a "ball" that is more than one ball above the belt are gone.

The two college evaluators I talk with have been told to be sure that all umpires call the "higher" strike zone as determined by the NCAA.

The "higher" strike is now defined as a pitch that is slightly below the lettering on the uniform top or basically at the bottom of the sternum.

Regards,

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

YMMV, but if I had ever called a strike at the top of the "new" zone at the varsity level, I would have been run out of town on a rail! I've never seen an umpire intentionally give a high strike in any of the games I worked.

Those days are over in my neck of the woods.

I call the high strike. Now, I'm just a little D3 umpire, but the 3 conferences I work in I just tell the coaches who chirp (and there isn't much chirping on high fastballs) "the NCAA wants it that way."

Once I started working to get it up there in college games, I took it right to the HS field. What I noticed was that nobody said anything as long as it was there the whole game. Where I see more kvetching is when an umpire is very, very tight.

Of course I live in Wisconsin, and the HS ball here pales to anything I used to see in the south, but even there I heard more complaining from coaches when partners were small on the zone.

(And I'm a former college umpire now as I decided that 10 hours away for 2 9-inning games for $185 with no travel money on 2-4 hour drives on Saturdays and Sundays wasn't worth putting up with the Earl Weaver wannabes I'd have to eject at least once every other week.)

[MajorDave]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Is it just me, or do these balls seem a tad large?

That's what she said.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Perhaps it has changed in the past couple of years (I thought you had retired?).

I know it has changed here and at the NCAA level -- call more "high" strikes

I know that at the NCUS camp they talked to us about calling more high strikes. we had some Assigners from a few conferences, Pac-10, WCC, MWC, and a few back east and they all talked about calling higher strikes.

[MajorDave]

I am curious to see if they will cover or address the strike zone we call at the clinic. I might bring it up in one of the breakout sessions if not mentioned by any of the presenters.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by tballump

Thanks for the pictures for the young guys. Now, would most people on this forum believe it is OK to expand the the inside and outside pitch to include the black part of the plate? I believe that would expand the zone in the pictures 1 inch on both sides. In other words, if "any" part of the ball hits "any" part of the "black" on either side, it would be called a strike. Although, by definition this is incorrect, would this come under the category of having too wide (liberal) a strike zone, and would it be acceptable to call this pitch a strike at all levels of play, including MLB with or without questec?

The black is part of the plate (as far as we are concerned) and if the ball appears to scrape it on the way by, it's a strike, with no qualms. It is not too wide a zone, in fact, it's expected to be called.

The black of the plate is the gray area.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Sorry, I'm old school. I don't care about the hitters either. In fact, I don't like rats, period. Plus, as I said, you get your a$s handed to you here for calling them too high. "Get it down, Blue!" is a common phrase in the highly competitive atmosphere here. Nobody likes the high zone, nobody wants it called, from the commissioner's office on down. It's not how we roll. At least not through the 2005 season, which is the latest I can comment about. The old "belly button to the bottom of the knee with a wide corner" is still the preferred zone around these parts. Call high strikes and wind up scratched by the top schools.

As for Southern California so far at the non NCAA level, Steve is absolutely right. You call the letters, and you will be getting all your fun at some of the better Monday and Wednesday games.

[UmpTTS43]

I know that at the DI and DII levels, it was the coaches that wanted the high strike called. Works for me.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I can't wait until I open it up this year. ... "That guy doesn't need any help, Blue."

The best one I ever heard was a criticism of my wide-zone partner: "He's calling everything from the goatees to the knees today."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Perhaps it has changed in the past couple of years (I thought you had retired?).

Maybe it has. I am contemplating a comeback in 2010 on a part time basis if I land the job that I want after graduation in March of this year. Finally will have my bachelors degree (in a different major). I hope to be down to my goal weight by January of 2010. I am working out now, and eating very sensibly.

[btdt]

It appears that all but a few subscribe to the theory that too tight a zone is not as desirable as a zone that is a bit more liberal without going too far.

Too far also appears to depend on your geographical location and level of play.

Sounds resonable to me.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by SAump

Will someone else respond to the hitter is part of the strike zone comment.

With the way some hitters crowd the plate, they do become part of the strike zone.

My favorite strike to call is the one on the inside corner they jump back from.