Bigger Strike Zone
 

I found that when I have expanded my strike zone out by one to two balls, but kept my same rigid must be the knee and armpit requirement that coaches and players seam to get along with my zone much easier. This is the zone taught at the National ASA School I attended this spring. When the instructors were teaching this expanded zone I was naturally hesitant to believe coaches and players would accept it, but they sure have. With this new and improved zone, my games have gone much faster and easier. Who'd a thunk it?

Bugg

WRT "expanded my strike zone out by one to two balls"
from where?

I'm thinking that this "expansion" would apply
mainly to inside pitches between the waist and knees ??
I agree that you can "move a game along" by getting
away from the bread box strike zone !

To clarify my original zone was any part of the ball over the plate. The expanded zone is any ball that is within one to two balls width over the plate. in effect expanding the plate out and in by about two ball widths. Like I said both coaches and players don't seam to mind. I also use this expanded zone in slow pitch, soon the standers become swingers -- again no complaints.

Bugg

Honestly, a good number of players and coaches could care less where the strike zone is as long as you keep it consistent. Big or small, high or low, as long as you keep it there the whole game there shouldn't be many problems. If there is, then you are probably dealing with a coach that would have a problem no matter what you did.

I agree, everyone can see up and down but only me and the catcher can tell if it was right or left, and she ain't telling!! I found that it works real well, and there are no complaints.....well I had one girl look at her coach on a called strike she thought was outside and he looked at her and said "Come on you got to get that, we want those called when were pitchin'....we got to hit 'em when they throw 'em" For the record she hit the next pitch to the fence in right field....it was almost the exact same place as the last pitch!! I figure if it is between the inside lines of the batters boxes, it's in the zone!! I'd probably say if it's toward the plate on the inside batters box line, and as long as part of the ball is toward the plate on the outside corner then it's good enough for me!! That is giving them 6" on either side of the plate, maybe more like 7-8" on the outside, and a 12" ball is approx. 4"(3.82.... depending on the value for pie) in diameter so that is about 1.5 ball width on the inside and about 2 ball widths on the outside.

Do any of you have a rule book? :eek:

You should be embarrassed.
 

Beyond understanding. You are proud that you call a strike when the ball is clearly out of the strike zone. You should give up umpiring today.

Dave,

Had a situation similar to that. Pitcher had just got an amazing fastball going that day and is locating it perfectly, starting it inside and tailing it back over the inside corner for a strike. Hitter are all giving up on it thinking it’s inside. I keep ringing batters up looking and I can see them and the coach becoming more and more agitated with every strikeout. (throwing arms up in the air, mumbling under breath stuff like that) Middle of the fifth inning, I ring up probably the ninth batter of the game looking and I hear “Jesus Christ” coming from the third base coaching box and the coach walking towards home. I reach up to start taking off my mask thinking alright here he comes, when he stops, turns to his dugout (on the third base side) and yells out “He’s been calling that pitch all damn game, when are you gonna start swinging at it!!” Turns and walks back to the coaching box.
I got a little chuckle and didn’t have another called strike three the rest of the game. Good players and coaches will adjust.

Personally, I think a big zone just makes for a better all-around game. The pitchers are more relaxed knowing they don’t have to hit a postage stamp for a strike so they generally throw better, the batters are coming up ready to swing and the infielders keep on their toes because they know the batters aren’t going to be wasting any time up there.

i need to increase the size of my postage stamp
 

This thread is coming at just the right time. My strike zone is small. I understand that I need to widen it a little, but seem to have a problem actually doing it. have another chance today-I have a 1 man JV game followed by BU for the varsity game. So here's hoping for a bigger strike zone.......

I am not going to give you flack about the zone you are calling since you were taught that zone at a National School. However, by "expanding" the zone by 1 - 2 ball widths on either side the zone is now almost 2 feet wider. There are batters that plain and simple are not going to be able to reach that outside strike. Yeah the game will move along faster, but only because the pitcher has an amazing advantage over the batter.

If you call it be consistent, but I would go back to the other zone you were calling. It is not about getting the game done quickly, its about enforcing the rules fairly and accurately. You decide if that zone is accurate or fair.

Like I said if you choose to call it you can and can justify it by where you were taught that. I personally wouldnt though.

The value for pie is 2 for a buck at McDonalds
pi is a constant 3.14 :D

Like I said this is the strike zone as taught by one of the very best umpires in the game, a man who's picture is clearly displayed in the rule book. If Wild Bill says call it here, guess what? that's where I'll call it. This is the same zone taught at this years National School in Seattle and last years National School in Portland. The intent of this post was to show that while reluctant to do so at first, I have noticed a remarkable difference in the way coaches and players respond to me when I am behind the dish. Gone are the days when the coach complained about every close call. Of course I am not calling the 18" off the plate the umpire (Gregg?) did in the NLCS a few years ago.

Bugg

Merle Butler taught the same thing at a State school I attended several years ago. 1 ball in, 1.5-2 balls out. Since even the little girls crowd the plate like Barry Whatzizname these days, those pitches are hittable.:D

Actually, it is easy to understand. I've explained this repeatedly on this and eteamz board. You just choose not to understand it.

As is usually reflected in game experiences, the good coaches not only understand it and expect it, but WANT the strike zone called in this manner.

They understand that approximately 20% of the pitches which by the book would be called strikes are difficult to impossible to hit well.

As usual, I do not expect you to learn anything here. You are too lazy and have learned is it easier to whine and complain than it is to go out and discover the game of softball.

Give up umpiring? Most of these guys/gals umpire better than you breath. I'll tell you what. We'll stop if you do.

Good God, man ... how big do you think a softball is?!?!?! 6 inches? You've purchased your softballs from an incompetent manufacturer.

16 inch? :D

Hmmmm.....16" ball in a FP game? That could be interesting.

Wouldn't need no stinkin' bat testing! :D

OK its an exageration. I get it. I was trying to make the point that its a lot of room on either side. No its not 2 feet.

Strike zone
 

Irish, here's what I understand about the strike zone. Any part of the ball in the officially defined zone is a strike. So, an umpire is on reasonably solid ground calling a ball over the white (17") plus over the black border (1" on each side of the plate) plus the width of the ball (4" on both sides of the plate). This is a total of 27 inches. Why would you find it acceptable for an umpire to call strikes on pitches that are 1 to 2 widths of the ball outside this acceptable strike zone. Because that's what the first poster says he is calling.

Because that is how we are instructed to call the strike zone, just as I have posted numerous times on here and eteamz. 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.

This is not a secret. This instruction and interpretation is given and referred to openly as demonstrated in this thread.

Actually, the inside line of each batter's box is supposed to be 6" from the plate (white), and the lines are supposed to be 2" wide. A universally acceptable strike zone in the highest levels of softball (NCAA Div I, Women's Major, 18U Gold, Men's Masters, all of which I have called) is for the ball to called a strike up to and including the width of the batter's box inside line. If the ball extends past the line inside the box, that is a ball.

That makes the strike zone 8" beyond the white on each side, or 33" wide. Actually, only one ball on each side what Eddie stated.

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.

The approximated value of pi = 3.14159265358979...

But, yes, it is constant. (Maybe we should change it to the ratio of a pear's perimeter to its diameter!)

(BTW, I am a math teacher)

Cecil - check your ASA or NFHS umpire's manual - Plate Mechanics, Set Position. "Widen it, and flatten it!" How far, or what shape it doesn't say. That is an individual's personalized strike zone. Simply because someone with an opinion teaches his version at a clinic somewhere does not make that an official strike zone for everyone to adapt to at all levels.

Here is my opinion; what I try to call; and what I teach. (Does anyone follow it? I don't know, but at least I have given them ammunition to think about their own strike zone.)

I like a horizontal oval shape, generally from below the breast line to above the knees. Maybe an inch inside (plus 4" ball width = 5" strike zone expansion inside); generally 2" - 3" outside (6" - 7" expansion outside).

As AtlUmpSteve noted, I will go those full limits and probably more outside for 18U or college ball. Still I do not like to go that far inside. You start calling strikes on pitches that far inside and you are teaching the pitcher to throw there. Maybe at the highest level those girls can turn on the far inside pitch, but I think that it is dangerous for H.S. and below.

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.

That is my opinion, do with it as you wish.

WMB

Yeah, I know that's in umpire manuals, just not in rules or clinics.

I will go that far inside, the same distance I will go outside. My reason is that if you don't call the same inside corner, batters will start to crowd the plate and lean over, making my life tougher in the slot. I want my slot back, and that's how I get it; by calling an aggressive inside corner.

I also take away the high inside and high outside pitches for the same reasons. Because I take away ALL low pitches (I am very serious about TOP of the knee), I will leave the corners at the top of the knee. Those are "pitcher's pitches", and if they hit those spots consistently, we will have a great game.

It is not possible to put it in the rules. If you are attending clinics that don't cover this, you need to find other clinics

Hmmm... I have my doubts. If you were really a math teacher, you would know that the approximate value of pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081 28481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 96442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190 91456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 73724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364 36789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 94330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185 48074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949

Unless, of course, you lived in Indiana in the late 1800's.

Never ending
 

I was under the belief that pie is continuing to grow. heard a story about a supercomputer at Cal that is getting new digits. It just runs the computations all the time........

Actually, it is an irrational number. Not trying to tempt Bluefoot into giving us a math lesson, but what this means, in effect, is that we can never know the value of pi exactly. No matter how many digits are used, it is still an approximation.

So, pi is not growing, but the number of digits that we know keep growing. Don't know if the story about the supercomputer at Cal is true or not... if it is, Cal has too much money.

That is an excellent explanation of an irrational number! It is a number with a decimal that never ends, and never becomes a repeating sequence of digits. (most specifically, it's one that can't be represented by writing the number as A/B, where A and B are both integers)

BTW, your 126th digit past the decimal is incorrect. It should be a 7.(HA!)

Pi is "growing" at the approximate rate that an umpire's strike zone does, when he loses his patience behind the plate and depserately wants the game to end.

Maybe we could get it to do something useful, like comparing all our rule books, or counting the myths that are posted, or the number of times someone says HTBT. ;)

Speaking ASA (and all the other codes I call)

That was your best call this year, Mike!:cool:

Spock
 

Mr. Spock actually used the value of pi to the last digit to confound a super computer in the original series "Star Trek"

He should have been an umpire:D

I decided to consciously use a wider strike zone on Friday because it was a JV game. Bad day to pick, because neither pitcher was anywhere near consistent and I ended up with no partner. So, after a couple innings I gave up. Too many other weird things happening to concentrate on anything new. Probably can't try again until Wed, because of the teams involved on Mon & Tue. :rolleyes:

About two years ago, I called an "outside strike" and the catcher gave me an exasperated look as the defensive coach yelled at me, "What do you mean strike? We're throwing an intentional walk." Oh well.

The next pitch was at about the same place. The batter hit it for a double.

Then why was the catcher even down in a crouch?

Let me understand this. You had two lousy pitchers so you didn't use a wider strike zone?

A video clip of this has actually been used in math classes that I've been in.

BTW, who is "Captain Slog" that Kirk talks to at the begining of each episode?

I ain't no trekkie.

Talk about useless redundancy.:rolleyes:

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.

I can only speak for the SP game, but after 25 years of doing this I can tell you that ANY part of the ball over ANY part of the plate as long as it is in their strike zone will be called a strike and it is a GREAT BIG ball.

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?

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

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]

<b>Hmmm... I have my doubts. If you were really a math teacher, you would know that the approximate value of pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081 28481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 96442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190 91456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 73724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364 36789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 94330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185 48074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949 </b>

A math professor at Princeton knows pi out to 1,000 places. So does his wife, who is also a math professor. In a strange coincidence, their son is gifted at math and got the highest scores in the country on the standardized tests his school administered.

I will now open myself up to criticism and admit that my zone is somewhat subjective and varies according to the level of play and even the situation. For example, last night a 14u player took a pitch a little high, fouled a pitch in the zone, took another pitch high, lined foul a pitch in the zone, and then checked her swing on a curve a few inches outside. Ball 3.

But I admit that if she had stood with the bat on her shoulder and watched strike 1 and strike 2 down the middle and then that curve a few inches outside, it would have been strike 3.

MLB, pitcher up. Stands like a statue with his bat on his shoulder for three pitches, two right down the pipe, the third one waist high and two inches outside. Is there an umpire who would not call that pitch strike 3?

Ted Williams up. Lines two balls foul and then shrugs off a waist-high pitch two inches outside. Is there an umpire who would call that pitch strike 3?

OK. Have at me.

Sure, why not? Big deal, Ted Williams.....you think he is incapable of freezing at the plate.....it's not like he's going to lose his head if you ring him up.......er, on second thought :)

I was thinking the same thing.

You are a good hitter so you get a smaller zone. You though are a crappy hitter so we're going to widen that zone up so you don't have to embarrass yourself too long.:D

The Zone-u-lator
 

OK, I admit it: my strike zone looks like a stop sign. Closer to the middle it is wider.

In most every situation (save a couple atrocious school ball games I might do) I will negotiate the width of my zone. If I call one between the letter and the armpits, or if I ever call one where the entire ball is not above the knee, I have erred.

Your zone may differ...and is slightly higher in many cases, especially east of the rockies :)

The strike zone is indeed defined in the rule book, just like the infield fly. But ordinary effort for Player A is NOT the same as ordinary effort for Player B. Could go on ad nauseum, but don't want to beat the dead horse any further...

SRW,
I have a name for the horse. I'd share it on the board, but many wouldn't understand.

Like IamMatt... I'm confused
 

As someone who only calls games when no "real" umpire can be had, I have enjoyed browsing this forum, and most of the posts, including in this thread.

I can understand some minor deviations from the "by the book" knees to armpits, edge to edge zone, as long as the strike zone is still pretty much a rectangle near the book definition. And I also understand subjective issues like the bat on the shoulder widening the strike zone.

But when I see umpires putting in writing that, as a matter of course, they have oval or octagonal strike zones because it's too hard to hit pitches in the corners, I get very confused:confused: , and not a little frustrated:mad:.

Do you think it's not hard to pitch into those same corners? How to you justify unilaterally changing the balance of the game like that?

Yeah, as you can probably guess... my daughter's a pitcher. :o

First you say you understand the deviations from the book strike zone and then obviously display that you don't. Before you start off on an eteamz-style, unknowledgable rant, you might want to actually be trained as an umpire.

This isn't something individual umpires just make up and post on discussion boards. The information comes from the ASA Umpire Manual (page 207), clinics and schools at the local, regional and national levels. The umpires are just doing what they are instructed, and to the best of my knowledge, at all levels in all associations!

First of all, the umpires that said they were trained to do something weren't (IIRC) the ones that described odd shapes, their deviations from pit/knee/plate weren't the ones I was decrying.

The posters that described the odd shapes implied these were personal preferences, using words like "I like," or "my strike zone" not "I was taught." Mike, your post described a square. Although the oval poster does, unfortunately, say he teaches this.

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.

The fact that it takes two or three different books, most of which are either not available to the general public or at least difficult to obtain, FOR EACH ASSOCIATION, just to have the complete story is a seperate tirade. Is the ASA rulebook online? No. Is the ASA Umpire Manual available online (p 207 or otherwise)? No. Can it be ordered easily? My efforts so far to obtain either have failed.

It's like telling the police that you should ticket anyone who runs a yellow light, but putting in the drivers training book not to run a red light, but proceed with caution through a yellow.

Basically, I guess I've two separate issues, one of which you address:

1) As someone calling a game, I should be trained to do it right. I won't argue that point.

2) As a fan/parent, I have a problem with what amounts to be a secret cabal deciding that the rules will be interpreted in a way different from what is the explicit written, and commonly understood, version of them.

Not sure why that would be difficult. Assumably your efforts to locate them online lead you to www.asasoftball.com, and then to your local association contacts. Your state UIC should be glad to register you as an ASA umpire, which includes the Umpire Edition of the ASA rulebook (and the umpire manual).

[daffy duck] *mmwwhhahahahaha* [/daffy duck]



;)

I find it humorous too how different coaches react to the same pitch. One of the colleges near me often asks me to call some intersquad scrimmage games for them. I find my strike zone to be very similar to one described by Mike (maybe a little lower at the top of the zone :o ). When I call stikes on the outside corner the hitting coach goes ballistic while the pitching coach is ready to buy me dinner!

One thing I've found in umpiring is that strike zones are strike zones and everyone has one and they are all different. Some people can't see the outside of the plate as well as others. There are those that have trouble with balls at the knees. If they are consistant with their zone, most coaches don't complain too much. Other than my patent leather shoes, I get more compliments on my strike zone than anything. I just wish I could figure that darned pi thing out . . .:D

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

Really?? How about:

Quote:

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?"

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :cool:
I was talking about shape rather than the extent or size for any age group. 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." ;) :D :rolleyes:


http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/tennant1/Figure6.jpg