Bigger Strike Zone

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Bluefoot

I ain't no trekkie.

Talk about useless redundancy.

[IamMatt]

Hope you don't mind my chiming in, but is there some reason that officials are told to do something at clinics that contradicts their written rules?

Maybe the rule sets are different for the sanctioning bodies you are referring to and if so, I apologize for my ignorance, but if, for example, the ASA rules define the strike zone as "...that space over any part of home plate.." what is the basis for an instructor to teach something contradictory?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

Hope you don't mind my chiming in, but is there some reason that officials are told to do something at clinics that contradicts their written rules?

Maybe the rule sets are different for the sanctioning bodies you are referring to and if so, I apologize for my ignorance, but if, for example, the ASA rules define the strike zone as "...that space over any part of home plate.." what is the basis for an instructor to teach something contradictory?

I thought that was explained quite well early on.

[IamMatt]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I thought that was explained quite well early on.

I probably should have worded my question differently. I wasn't questioning whaether there are reasons in favor of the strike zone being enlarged or altered, just the methodolgy of implementing the change by intstructing officials to do something that contradicts the rules.

The rules define a specific strike zone. If the consensus is that the strike zone prescribed in the rules is not working well or needs to be wider, wouldn't the appropriate thing be to change the rules rather than break or contradict them?

I know nobody would decide to award first base on 3 balls instead of 4 or call a batter out with 2 strikes instead of 3 because it seemed to work better or to move the game along, and I don't imagine that anyone would instruct that in a clinic.

I am just trying to understand why the approach is not to change the rule rather than circumvent it?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

I know nobody would decide to award first base on 3 balls instead of 4 or call a batter out with 2 strikes instead of 3 because it seemed to work better or to move the game along, and I don't imagine that anyone would instruct that in a clinic.

Actually, they do. It is not at all uncommon for leagues to have batters come to bat with a 1-1 count.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

The rules define a specific strike zone. If the consensus is that the strike zone prescribed in the rules is not working well or needs to be wider, wouldn't the appropriate thing be to change the rules rather than break or contradict them?

Here it is, again:

The strike zone is only defined the way it is because the armpits and knees are the physical focal points. However, a ball at the arm pits or knees on the inside corner and the high outside corner are difficult pitches that many players cannot hit.

This is understood in the softball world, even by the better coaches. Unfortunately, there are no other physical attributes on a batter that can be used to adjust the strike zone to hitable pitches, so it is handled through instruction and interpretation. Umpires are instructed to bring it down a little, up a little, and to allow the same "square area" for the pitcher, out a little. An inside or outside pitch, even a ball's width, is much more hitable just above the knees and below the armpits than an inside pitch across the plate at the armpits/knees. The adjustment gives the batter more hitable pitches while maintaining the same "square area" for the pitcher to hit for a strike.[quote]