I agree with the last post 100%. If a pitcher has demonstated that she can hit her spots on command. Reward her! She has spent countless hours perfecting the skill of pitching. Any batter can get lucky and hit a ball, but a pitcher that hits her spots consistantly shouldnt be penalized for being good.

I wonder how many would really want these pitches called on their batters as strikes. D and E.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7888/sz2.gif

By the most liberal interpretations of strike zones, the edge of the ball will nick the boundries (as with before assuming over the plate).

I'm quite sure that if I punched out the last batter on his team of the last inning of a championship game, bases loaded, 2 outs - on an coach "disappointed" with this discussion - he would be posting an altogether different thread.. and it wouldnt be praise for bibliclly following the strike zone rules.

[Edited by wadeintothem on May 27th, 2004 at 06:12 PM]

I understand everyones idea of what we should call and what we're expected to call. I can also buy into various clinics telling us that they want us to keep the whole ball above the knees and the whole ball below the forward armpit. I can live with that. What I have a problem with is the obvious falseness of what we do compared with what the rule SAYS. It doesn't SAY what the powers that be want us to DO. That alone makes makes me feel somehow I was told the secret rule while coaches, fans, etc know the public one. I don't like that feeling.

If that is the zone that we're expected to call why not change the written rule to reflect that? "The whole ball must be below the forward armpit and above the top of the knee" could be added and bring expectations and reality a little closer to each other. Of course you would still have many different interpretations but at least it might be a step in the right direction.

Here's my two cents, the way I call them, and they way I see them called here in New Jersey:

For high-level girls' FP: A and of course B are strikes and will get no argument from anybody. A strike even an inch lower will evoke no noise at all. C is far too high—the crowd would erupt at a strike call up there, no matter what the book says. As one local NCAA ump told me, they teach the whole ball (not a part of the ball) under the armpits, but in practice it has to be lower than that. I think around here the entire zone is moved a few inches down, with the top end more like MLB and the low end lower than baseball. Any part of the ball catches the hollow under the kneecap, it's a strike. D will get a strike call. E will not.

That's the general practice here. And the corners of the zone are rounded; some umps call it an oval. Not saying these things are right or wrong—it's just what everybody seems to expect.

Maybe you didn't see my post on eteamz, or maybe you have never been to a FP clinic. IT ISN'T THE UMPIRE MAKING UP THE STRIKE ZONE.

From ASA & NFHS to NCAA, the manner in which to call the strike zone is taught and it does not always meet the specifications of the perfect book strike zone.

The reason they want the entire ball within the zone at the top is because anything else is basically unhittable in the FP game. Problem is that the ONLY physical attribute available to define the top of the zone is the armpits. For a number of reasons, especially the men's game, you cannot refer to the breats and anyone who lives by the "letters" as being the top of the zone needs to start over again or go back to baseball where such a comment makes sense to a few people.

Since the only attribute is naturally high, the interpretation is meant to bring it down by the diameter of the ball. The zone is also widened a little because the pitch is hitable an inch or two off the plate. BTW, if you check page 209 of the 2004 ASA Rule Book, you will find the prescribed manner in which to call the strike zone. These mechanics are endorsed by ASA and the NFCA which is the first organization of which I am aware to introduce the "chevrolet" strike zone. That's right, the coach's organization wanted it called differently from the description in the book.

Another point on this madness is that it gives the pitchers basically the same size area in which to deliver the ball and, at the same time, shows the batter more pitches to hit. IOW, it supports the advancement of the game of softball.

Like, don't like it. Use it, don't use it. I do not care, your strike zone is your strike zone. Some may believe it to be good, some may believe it to be poor. I do not care, your strike zone is your strike zone. However, I do not believe you can say others are making up their own strike zone when they are following what is offered in the book and clinics.

If anyone here attended the 2003 UIC Clinic in OKC, you saw a full demonstration including film clips on how the zone should be viewed and called. It included a batter being shown standing toward the outside of their box and the bat still reaching 6" and more past the opposite side of the plate.

Bring it up, bring it down and widen it out just a bit to give the pitcher the same size hole to throw it through. The same as is on page 209 in the book.

that's good insight mike.

I take issue with the claims (especially by the coaches at ez teams) umps are "inventing their own strike zone" with the interpretation as provided by you and as correctly referenced in the 2004 book.

Thanks.

Some nights you have to call tose pitches strikes :(

IMHO---

by bringing the zone down, bringing it up, and widening it out, you give two things:

1. Batter has more (percentage wise) hittable pitches to make contact with.

2. Pitchers love corners, and you reward those who can hit that outside corner/inside corner by calling it strikes (rewarding those who can hit spots).

Fair enough, Mike.

Believe it or not, I have been to several clinics. The odd thing is that I do not recall the strikezone EVER coming up. Rule changes, interpretations where rules seem to conflict, local (read-state) differences, suggestions for changes, mechanics, discussions on how to train locally, age-difference rules, etc. Much of the same discussions you find here on this board, and also on that other board. But no strikezone. I'll specifically bring it up at the next meeting.

Perhaps if we're being taught one thing and the rulebook says another, we could reword the rulebook - although I DO understand your valid point about it being difficult to describe. Perhaps they could at least word it to say "1 ball-width below the armpits" or somesuch.

As to the width, I believe that a lot of the pitches being described as outside are not actually outside. ANY part of the ball over ANY part of the plate - makes the zone pretty wide. I make a point of dusting off the black portion of the plate on both sides, and call both sides strikes.

As to the Chevrolet shaped zone, that bothers me, and I hope we never teach it. If the ball's not high or low, and not outside or inside, it should be a strike, even if it is just barely inside the zone in both dimensions.

In youth rec ball it also adds a "teach em to hit" factor, instead of batter standing there waiting for the pitch 2 feet away from the play hoping for a walk.

I agree there. In the younger ages, I'll usually tell both coaches that the strike zone is big, and they need to swing the bats. I might call both D and E strikes at that age (although I'll admit D is easier to call than E - on E, the catcher usually stands up, and it's hard to see if it came down in time.)

The thing I'm always trying to balance with the younger ones is avoiding a walk-a-thon vs. teaching the batters bad habits.

I will call a generous zone with little kids, but I won't have them swinging above their shoulders.

On the "rainbow" pitches, I require it to enter the zone in the front half for the high pitch - IOW, the example shown, E is a ball, but if it dropped more toward the pitcher, it'd be a strike.

Two things come to mind here.

They while the idea of widening the zone broadens the pitcher's target, I don't think the idea is to make it a larger target to hit, just wider.

Also, as they teach in SP on the height issue, instead of using 6 to 12 feet, use 7 to 11 and allow for a margin of error.

BTW, I do not believe they will ever change the strike zone definition. Does anyone remember being taught that the "natural" batting stance was to be thought of as when the batter is striding during their swing, not just standing by the plate? Now that would really compact the zone.

Just thoughts.