Bigger Strike Zone

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

I do have the NFHS softball rules and umpires manual, but not here with me at the moment. Maybe I'm blocking out an unpleasant memory, but I remember nothing in there like what you're describing.

Top of page 21 (Section 2 - Plate Mechanics - Fast Pitch) in the 2004 NFHS Umpires Manual.

[JefferMC]

I've got the 2005-2006 at home. I'll look tonight!

[wadeintothem]

In my view the path of least resistance is wider but shorter..

Everyone can see high low.. only you, batter, and the catchers knows a pitch was a little out side or inside.. but you call em at the arm pits and everyones screaming "its over his head he cant hit that"

So I bring it down.. but widen a little.. seems to work best.. be consistent that you are giving corners, they start to figure it out, but you dont get the chorus... but dont call the high stuff or super low stuff everyone can see.

Plink Plink...

do what you dig though, just saying what works for m.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Top of page 21 (Section 2 - Plate Mechanics - Fast Pitch) in the 2004 NFHS Umpires Manual.

I looked at this section in the 2006-2007 manual. It described your stance and mechanics of how to watch the ball and call the pitch. However, I did not get from this that you should change the shape of the strike zone because batters may have trouble with parts of it.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

I looked at this section in the 2006-2007 manual. It described your stance and mechanics of how to watch the ball and call the pitch. However, I did not get from this that you should change the shape of the strike zone because batters may have trouble with parts of it.

How do interpret "In calling balls and strikes, it is generally most accepted to bring the down or up onto the strikezone, and widen it out, making sure to give a good corner", then (page 21 in the 2006-2007 manual)? Would that be the stance, the mechanics of watching and calling, or a revision of the textbook defined strike zone?

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

How do interpret "In calling balls and strikes, it is generally most accepted to bring the [the word "ball" belongs here] down or up onto the strikezone, and widen it out, making sure to give a good corner", then (page 21 in the 2006-2007 manual)? Would that be the stance, the mechanics of watching and calling, or a revision of the textbook defined strike zone?

Let me back up and say that I read that paragraph a total of 6 or 7 times. Initially, I wasn't sure exactly what to make of it. How do you, the umpire, standing behind the plate (and the catcher), "bring the ball" anywhere? My best read of that before this discussion was that this is how you should train your eyes to watch the ball. And it still didn't make sense.

Now I see that it apparently means "make the strikezone slightly shorter from both directions and slightly wider." And, it admonishes "making sure to give a good corner." How many corners does an oval have?

Moving the lines a ball width up, down, left and/or right isn't my primary concern here (as long as its consistantly applied). Hearing an umpire say that he takes corners away from it because it's hard to hit the ball there, that is my concern.

And I also think that if umpires are going to be instructed to apply the stike zone this way that the Rules should be amended to describe the called strike zone.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

Let me back up and say that I read that paragraph a total of 6 or 7 times. Initially, I wasn't sure exactly what to make of it. How do you, the umpire, standing behind the plate (and the catcher), "bring the ball" anywhere? My best read of that before this discussion was that this is how you should train your eyes to watch the ball. And it still didn't make sense.

Now I see that it apparently means "make the strikezone slightly shorter from both directions and slightly wider." And, it admonishes "making sure to give a good corner." How many corners does an oval have?

It's the PLATE, not the area of the strike zone.

Moving the lines a ball width up, down, left and/or right isn't my primary concern here (as long as its consistantly applied). Hearing an umpire say that he takes corners away from it because it's hard to hit the ball there, that is my concern.

No such comment ever made. The interpretation is to eliminate parts of the defined zone which provide difficulty to any batter.

And I also think that if umpires are going to be instructed to apply the stike zone this way that the Rules should be amended to describe the called strike zone.

Do you think you've stumbled onto something new here? Well, go ahead and do it. Give us the change you would recommend and remember, whatever you come up with, there must be defined standard, focal points to be used by the umpire.

Good luck

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It's the PLATE, not the area of the strike zone.

Huh? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you just said.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No such comment ever made. The interpretation is to eliminate parts of the defined zone which provide difficulty to any batter.

Really?? How about:

Originally Posted by WMB

The reason for the oval shape is to take away the high inside/high outside, and the low inside/low outside pitches. As Irish noted above, those are not hittable pitches.

Okay, I paraphrased, but I think "takes corners away from it because it's hard to hit the ball there" is a pretty good interpretation.

You [Mike] have consistantly refered back to a square, as does the NFHS Manual. So, from whence do we get "pear shape", "stop sign shape", or "oval?"

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Do you think you've stumbled onto something new here? Well, go ahead and do it. Give us the change you would recommend and remember, whatever you come up with, there must be defined standard, focal points to be used by the umpire.

This point is ceeded. The world is imperfect; there are rules/laws and the application of them differs. Why should softball be any different?!

[IRISHMAFIA]

It's the PLATE, not the area of the strike zone.

Huh? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you just said.

The "good corner" refers to the vertical column above the plate.

No such comment ever made. The interpretation is to eliminate parts of the defined zone which provide difficulty to any batter.

Really?? How about:

The reason for the oval shape is to take away the high inside/high outside, and the low inside/low outside pitches. As Irish noted above, those are not hittable pitches.

No, YOU said the an umpire made that statement. I clearly pointed out that the Umpire Manual instructs the umpire to do that, not just something an umpire states as a specific deviation for his/her strike zone.

Unless the batter is 27" from the armpits to the knees, it is not possible to have a "square". It used to be presented as a Cheverolet logo. A few years back, the visual of a balloon being compressed a little at the top and bottom. This would cause the sides to expand out giving a more accurate shape of the strike zone the higher ups want called.

[bkbjones]

While I long ago called the dead horse to be displayed on this thread, I will respond since my "stop sign" strike zone has been a bone of contention.

My zone is shaped like a strike zone because of several factors. But I'll be go-to-hell damned if I care whether or not a batter can hit a pitch.

The top of the zone and bottom of the zone are well defined for every batter. Hell, everyone can see that from the dugout, the left field corner on a right handed batter...even Helen Keller can see those points.

Now, those who have seen me know that the entire freakin ball better be above the knee or below the top of the zone.

Now, why is it shaped like a stop sign? One word: survivability.

This poster says his daughter is a pitcher. Well, my stop sign strike zone you have taken to task is damned well a pitcher's strike zone. It's wide, and when I am having a good day and well hydrated and have remembered to put my mask on the right way the son-of-agun is 25 inches wide. I even give as much inside as I do outside.

If I have to compromise at all it is with the width. I do not compromise at the bottom at any time, which has more than once bothered a pitcher and even another umpire or two along the way.

But it all comes down to survivability, in many forms. I could go on and on about that and would be happy to address that, as would many others I'm sure. But I'm on vacation right now and about to hit the sack. But I will defend my damned old stop sign strike zone any time any where...and would be delighted to hear that others use it too. It's not for everyone - I understand that some have an 18-inch-wide rectangular zone, and some have 28-inch wide trapezoids. But I'll not let my zone be defiled.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The strike zone is a minimum of 27" wide on many, if not most, softball fields. Why would any umpire want to shrink that?

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The strike zone is a minimum of 27" wide on many, if not most, softball fields. Why would any umpire want to shrink that?

25, 27, I'm not counting. I just know it's the width of the ball inside and outside. Maybe I was thinking about my 10u zone.

[Al]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I never knew that was an official teaching before, in spite of having heard it, knowing it was acceptable and partly using it. I have always preferred visualizing the strike zone as pear-shaped, full height but wider in the lower part and not quite as wide at the absolute bottom.

Hey Cecil,

With many 8, 9 and 10 year olds if the umpire didn't expand the strike zone some of the coaches would start telling his girls not to swing the bat, and who wants a game where most of the kids are walking? I think a little common sense would go a long way when taking into account the experience of the pitchers in regard to the strike zone. In the higher age groups the strike zone of many umpires is not as expanded... as we seen in the softball world series games. Take care, ...Al

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Al

Hey Cecil,

With many 8, 9 and 10 year olds if the umpire didn't expand the strike zone some of the coaches would start telling his girls not to swing the bat, and who wants a game where most of the kids are walking? I think a little common sense would go a long way when taking into account the experience of the pitchers in regard to the strike zone. In the higher age groups the strike zone of many umpires is not as expanded... as we seen in the softball world series games. Take care, ...Al

Agree.
I was talking about shape rather than the extent or size for any age group. Others had described rectangles, octagons, ovals, trapezoids, etc.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I have always preferred visualizing the strike zone as pear-shaped, full height but wider in the lower part and not quite as wide at the absolute bottom....Others had described rectangles, octagons, ovals, trapezoids, etc.

Here is my strike zone.

Normally, I use the "blue" zone, but if the coach starts chirping, I go with the "green."