The other thread on strike zone got me wondering about Strike Zone.

I've been consciously working on my low outside - Low outside is the toughest one IMO. I'm the opposite than what was described on the post though:

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/13851

i have a tendency to call a strike on a call that when I think about later maybe should have been a ball. I do work a close slot.

My UIC told me he uses the catchers knees to have a consistant low zone.. but that hasnt helped me any since its hard enough to pay attention to everything else in addition to the cathers knee location.

I thought I would get Opinions on this photo for what you would call a strike.

Assume the balls as depicted are over the plate.
Fast Pitch

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6091/sz.gif

Ball A) Meant to depict a ball where perhaps only the top portion runs across the top of the knee.

Ball B) where a small portion of the ball is below the top part of the knee, but basically runs right across the knees.

Ball C) Meant to depict a ball where the middle of the ball runs across the armpits.

For me, on ball A - if it was outside end of plate, it might be one of them where I called a strike and on thinking about it later I might think of it is a bad call.

Ball B is a strike to me.

Ball C is too high for my taste, but I have seen umps (maybe even the ump in the last UCLA game) call that a strike.

Photo is of my DD so no copyright concerns, etc, in case that is moderated.



[Edited by wadeintothem on May 26th, 2004 at 04:11 PM]

I believe by definition all are strikes. Arm pit & top of knee. Doesn't say more than 50% of the ball crosses the arm pit or top of knee. Thus if any of the ball hits the mark, I call a strike

So you use the "any part of the ball" goes through "any part of the zone" .. its a strike? Thats kind of what I was wondering.. how much of the ball should be in the legal strike zone.

I see a ball cross the knees, and I'm quick to call strike, followed by the invariable "Hey that was in the dirt" cackles.

I'd call "A" a strike--for me, part of the ball has to hit the top of the knee.

I'd call "B" as strike--it is at the knee...great pitch no matter what corner of the plate it is on.

I'd call "C" a ball at any level--I never have liked that pitch. The ball has to be hitable...that ball is not hitable on a consistent basis...nothing to do but pop that pitch up or miss it.

I assume this is a fastpitch game.

Here's my question: Wherever your outside corner is, would you more likely call a pitch with the height of "A" a strike or a pitch with the height of "B" a strike?

[Edited by FUBLUE on May 26th, 2004 at 04:12 PM]

Technically speaking, ANY part of the ball passing through ANY part of the strike zone is a strike. So in a technical sense, all three pitches could be called a strike. However, given the diameter of the ball, if the bottom of the ball passes through the top of the strike zone, the ball would be close to shoulder height. Vice versa, if the top of the ball passes through the bottom of the strike zone, the majority of the ball is below the knees. Consequently, most umpires will call a strike only if the top of the ball passes through the top of the strike zone and only if the bottom of the ball passes through the bottom of the strike zone. This will bring the strike zone down from the top and up from the bottom which will give a much more realistic and consistent strike zone. Horizontally, call a strike if any part of the ball passes through the strike zone including the inside edge of the ball. This will widen the zone eliminating the postage stamp strike zone that is very difficult for pitchers to hit consistently, especially young ones. Of the three pitches depicted here, I would most likely call A & C a ball and B would be a strike but just barely.

I think I'm low. i'd surely call B.. and I think A also. My daughter was in the stands one time and she said that in the coaches pregame speech the coach said "he calls them low so you better be swinging if it's close".

It's giving me a complex :)

Is FP, I edited the original post to specify.



[Edited by wadeintothem on May 26th, 2004 at 04:16 PM]

Then again, if coaches perceive you as calling A when they bat, but not when the pitch, you're inconsistent. ;)

<B>Eagle states:

This will bring the strike zone down from the top and up from the bottom which will give a much more realistic and consistent strike zone.</B>

What you meant to say is a more fan friendly zone. The size of the zone has no bearing on consistency. What makes the zone you described more realistic than the zone Wade or Chuck described?

<B>FUBLUE states:

I'd call "C" a ball at any level--I never have liked that pitch. The ball has to be hitable...that ball is not hitable on a consistent basis...nothing to do but pop that pitch up or miss it.</B>

It is a pitcher's pitch. Is a low pitch that catches the outside corner hittable? Not any easier that the high pitch.

I think A is more hitable than C.

I know its an evil sin to consider MLB - but you would never see C in MLB as strike and A is a strike quite often. I saw an ump the other night - i forget which game, but he was consistently giving about 2-3 inches outside and a was low also.

Shorter wider strike zones in FP is preached by my UIC as well.

Now youre trying to give me a complex!!! ;)

Speaking ASA

Only B is a definite strike;

C is never a strike;

And A depends on the umpire.

Alabamabluezebra said:
"It is a pitcher's pitch. Is a low pitch that catches the outside corner hittable? Not any easier that the high pitch."

IMHO:
A "low outside corner pitch"? No, not hittable. An outside corner pitch on the low end of the strike zone (read knee--you pick B or A)? Yeah, definitely hittable. With girls at all levels using longer, lighter bats, taking hitting lessons since age 3, etc., it is definitely a hitable pitch.

With "C" all that can happen is a pop-up or wiff. Ocassionally a girl will get ahold of one, but rarely (on average).

With "B" or "A" on the outside corner they can do all kinds of things with it..ground ball, lift it to right field, push-bunt, etc. It makes the defense make a play.

I worked the first game of our state HS tournament last night. I called three pitches on outside corner at the knee all night. Rest of the time girls hit it. One girl bunted it; another looped it over F3's head. Another lifted it to centerfield.

Only once did I see "C" hit all night...and it was a pop up to short center.

IMHO, "C" is not a pitchers pitch. It a pitch you throw to try to get someone to swing at it...it's a waste pitch...either that, or you can't keep the ball down.

I agree with Mike, the only strike I see in the picture
is B. However, I am sure A will get some calls. C, never
in my book. Drop C below the front elbow and yes, Strikeee.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6091/sz.gif

From the picture for me, A and B are both strikes in my eyes. Pitcher's love to get pitch A called. C is WAY too high. The highest that I'll go for C is the middle of that image on the batter's shirt. But that's just me.

I agree with Glen and Mike. As shown I see "B" as the only strike.

Another consideration would be, where is the batter standing in the batter's box?

Michael

As you can see, it is a typical wonderfully lined batters box!

I dont think it matters for me. I dont change my strike zone at all if they move around the box, even when I'm giving some outside and they are back in the box, thats their prob.

Anyway, if you look close, you can see the plate, she is back in the box. The plate is very dirty, but you can see it in the pic around her middle toe left foot.

Why?

It's troubling to me that if any portion of the ball, catches the arm pit or top of knee...we still can't decide whether it's a strike or not. No wonder why coaches wonder about us as a group. Can't you hear a bunch of coaches saying "why don't you guys go to school & get on the same page". Its impossible ! Then add to this factor age bracket, whether its 95 degrees with no breeze, or maybe its the 3rd game you're doing that day & all the sudden the strike zone gets a bit bigger. Perhaps all we can do is be consistant all game long.

Umpires come with all personalities and outlooks on life, including ideas of whether laws and other regulations in life are rules or merely guidelines. That approach to life carries over onto the field as well, whether coaching, playing, or umpiring. Nothing new there.

However, even the rulesniks should have no confusion about the "any part of the ball" notion on the high and low pitch. We are not to call those strikes. It says so in the books, and in any school / clinic you will go to that addresses the topic of the strike zone.

Going by the book, and assuming this batter is next to the plate and in her normal batting stance, neither A nor C are strikes.

Because the strike zone stays over the plate, not next to the batter.

I agree with the bunch that say that B is a strike, and all others are balls.

I dont understand how this is applicable to the discussion. Batter location in the box has nothing to do with the strike zone.

Batter location has nothing to do with strike zone is true, but they are talking about this PHOTO and the location of the ball as drawn.

oh, well in the description i said assume the ball is over the plate. My 3D drawing skills are not up to par :).

My point exactly, it's where the ball is when it crosses the plate. If the batter is in the front or the back of the box is of no consequence!

I think what is being discussed is in all 3 cases the balls are descending. If this batter is in the extreme front of the box and this is where the ball crosses her at that spot in the batters box..we need to picture where they would cross her if she was standing at the plate. Thus "C" would be chest high, "B" might barely catch the knee, and "A" would be shin high. STRIKE,STRIKE,BALL.
,
But if she is in the very back of the box then we might say
BALL,STRIKE,STRIKE

OK... whoever raised the batter's box location question was being just a bit over-analyzing, but you did ask why. The why is because the pic shows the ball relative to the batter, and does not show the batter relative to the plate. True, it was stated we were to assume the ball was over the plate - which is getting at exactly the same question - where is the plate?

C? No way. Never. Drop it down to the logo on her shirt. A part of the ball below the logo and I've got a strike. No part of the ball below the logo and I'm calling ball. That really misses a lot of the zone as described in NFHS (don't have the ASA rules here) but it is what I find most acceptable to batters, coaches, fans, and is easy for me to be consistent. Maybe it's the baseball in me. Calling strikes up around the shoulders always leads to excitement (negative).

NFHS 2-56-3
That space over home plate which is between the batter's forward armpit and the top of the knees when the batter assumes a natural batting stance. Any part of the ball passing through the strike zone in flight shall be considered a strike.

That is very close to a Slow Pitch strike zone - and is appropriate for that game. But I feel that zone is way to high for Fast Pitch.

Any discussion of the strike zone is always a bit misleading because we have a size to the ball (approx 4 inches diameter), to the plate (sides are 8.5 inches long), to the knees etc... and the flight of the ball is not a straight line

B? If the bottom of the ball is located at the bottom line drawn on your figure... the top of the ball is likely above the top of the knee - strike. If the center of the ball were at B... maybe. Top of the ball at B? No.

There is a lot of philosophical stuff that could be said here... and I started ... then erased it.

Pick a zone that your like and can justify in your mind, then enforce it... consistently. You'll never get more than minor comments if you can do it consistently.

:D

If a pitcher's throwing that straight, with no drop, I've got a strike on both low pitches and a ball on the high pitch. However, many pitchers will have some drop on these pitches, thus making that high pitch a possible strike if it comes down a little while still over the plate.

(And at the younger ages, I'll give the high pitch a strike too - or we're watching a walkathon.)

I fully support, and practice the concept of "flattening" the strike zone (pull it down, and up, and widen).

A ball that touches the top part of the strike zone can be coming across the neck or even chin, and is technically a strike, but you don’t want to call that. I want to see all of the ball below the arm pits, and all of the ball above the knees. A typical softball pitch drops. Typical knees are 14"-16" off the ground. A ball through or below the knees across the front of the plate may be near the catcher's ankles - which is what the fans see. Then give a couple inches inside/outside as a strike.

When you have “flattened” your strike zone I suggest that you cut off the four points of the rectangle and visualize your strike zone as “pear” or “oval” shaped. You don’t want to call a strike on a pitch that is a little high and a little outside. You have two negatives (high, outside) and one of them will get you an argument. If a pitch is a little high, but over the center part of the plate you will get away with that strike call. Likewise, if the pitch is a little off the plate, but through the middle (beltline plus or minus 8”) you’ve got strike.

WMB

I know I'll catch he77 for this, especially with MR endorsing this as common (which surprised the he77 out of me, considering his impeccable record on defending the REST of the rulebook) on the other board. However, why do we feel the need to create "Our Own" strike zone. Call it to the book AS BEST YOU CAN. Your zone, WMB, creates a league where pitchers will never get good hitters out, because they have to pitch extremely hittable balls.

I do understand the idea of a slightly bigger strikezone when the pitchers are younger, to encourage hitting and avoid walkathons.

But when the girls are old enough to pitch and old enough to hit - call the book. If a pitcher can consistently throw that armpit-high ball on a rope, why do you want to penalize her? If a pitcher can throw a drop pitch that starts at the knees at the front of the plate and falls off the table - why penalize her?

If any part of the ball crosses the strikezone between the armpits and the top of the knees, at any point over the plate (inside, outside, front, back), CALL IT. Don't make up your own rules.

...and you wonder why fans think we're blind.

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.