Final 2008 NCAA Rule Changes
 

They were posted yesterday on NCAA's website here.

Strike Zone Language vs Strike Zone Picture
 

Looks like the NCAA strike zone language is not consistent with the strike zone picture shown at the bottom of the "changes" document. The problem is the bottom of the strike zone. Is it defined by the "top of the ball" as stated in the new words or is it the "bottom of the ball" as shown in the picture?

As much as this pains me ;) , I have to agree with Ed here.

Not too impressed with the need for an anatomy class to umpire a ball game. At least the armpits are relatively visible to all. Good luck with some of the umpires trying to figure out where a player's sternum is located :eek:

You could get arrested for that! :cool: :rolleyes:

Now that's strange...

I've referenced that NCAA diagram before, using it in some internet discussions on the strike zone and in some training classes for local leagues.

That IS NOT the same as the existing diagram. The existing diagram shows the top of the ball touching the horizontal line at the knees. It can be seen here: NCAA On-Line Rule Book (page 152).

The diagram has been wrong in the past, too; they recently got it fixed to match the wording of the rule. My guess is they used an old diagram to be altered, rather than the newest.

I like sternum as a definition. I read that as (pardon my language, ladies) meaning "no ball in the boob", or no ball in the sports-bra. Picture her with one or the other, and the entire ball must be below that point.

Can't think of a more PC way to describe it than the sternum; and I like the location, as one everyone should be able to live with.

I see a new trend of not wearing sports bras in the near future...

Wait...maybe I have that backwards. :D

I, too, feel that sternum satisfactorily describes the top end of the zone in this PC day and age.

how the heck am i suppose to see the very bottom of the ball crossing the top of the knees? (as per the diagram) maybe if i use the scissors stance? ohhh thats right... i dont do NCAA ball .. never mind :D

Really, it isn't that hard at all.

While on paper a "line" more like what is being called, I don't believe it provides any clearer than the umpires bringing the top of the zone down by about a ball.

And to Steve's point, not all players are built alike so your reference point is just as spotty.

I wouldn't bet that the "zone" as called is going to change that much with this definition.

After researching several sites with definitions and diagrams of the sternum I have come to the conclusion that the top part of the sternum is just below the top of the shoulders. Is this where the NCAA actually wants the top of the strike zone to be?

The best definition and diagrams I found were here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DG

And it shouldn't. Here's the rationale sent to us along with the rule change:

"This language eliminates any discrepancy and is now aligned with the strike zone diagram in the rules book that coaches prefer and is most commonly called on the field."

And yes, I can see the "forward armpit" better than the bottom of the sternum. I can also see someone being run off the field for calling that a strike at any level above league ball. Maybe ASA should bring their wording in line with what's being called on their fields as well.

I'd guess not... the rule change document says "bottom of the sternum" ;)

It already is in line with what ASA wants called, if you read the WHOLE book, and not just the playing rules section. The arm pits are the starting reference for determining the top of the zone. The bottom of a pitched ball just touching the arm pit level is not in the strike zone as defined and instructed by ASA.

Making presumptions about how much of the book I have read is neither stinging, nor relevant.

"STRIKE ZONE: That space over any part of home plate, when a batter assumes a natural batting stance adjacent to home plate, between the batter’s,
A. (Fast Pitch) Arm pits and the top of the knees...

In calling balls and strikes, it is generally accepted to bring the pitch down or up in the strike zone, and widen it out, making sure to give a good corner."

This wording describes the limits of the zone, but not "what ASA wants called". The last sentence seems to allow an official to call "their" zone, instead of "the" zone. One could consider this ASA sanctioned inconsistency. It's odd to me that an organization that requires it's umpires to button-hook on all balls hit to the outfield and signal all foul balls (no matter how far back over the backstop) would use vague terms like "down or up in the strike zone", "widen it out", and "good corner".

Ohwa Tana siam. :o

OK, maybe I'm in the minority here . . . but does anyone that calls NCAA really call the armpits? The bottom of the sternum is pretty much what has been accepted around here as the top of the strike zone. I know at colleges around here, if you called one any higher they'd want to cut off your "ball bag". They'd much rather you call one below the top of the knee than above the "bottom of the sternum".

The point is, though, for years colleges and high schools have been asking us, at least regionally, to make the top end of the strike zone where the top of the ball is at the bottom of the breast. I was just making the statement that the more PC way of saying this would be to use the sternum in describing it. The zone depicted in the OP is the zone I have been calling for years because of the emphasis placed on it by the HS and collegiate umpiring associations I work for.

I know of no one who calls a pitch that high in either NCAA or NFHS levels. As I stated in my previous post, the accepted zone in this region is identical to the 2008 "rule change" that the NCAA has made, and this is due, in part, to the requests of area HS and college coaches.

What is the relevance of that?

ASA uses the armpits as a visible point of reference from which to bring the zone down to where they want it called. And, guess what, it ends up about where the NCAA's "rule change" puts it - that is, where it is anyway.

The only people I know of who argue the hard case for the arm pits as the top of the zone are coaches on eteamz.

Change the wording as much as you want...my strike zone has been the same for the last 10 years and isn't going to change now (whether it is a good zone or not depends on which team you are rooting for I guess :p )

Might also want to make a point that the realm of those playing ASA ball range anywhere from 6 years old to 70, male and female at multiple levels of ability.

QUOTE=BHBlue]Making presumptions about how much of the book I have read is neither stinging, nor relevant.[QUOTE]

However, I know for a fact BHBLUE has read, understood and applied the rules as per rule book. one of the best NCAA evaluators in the business.
Saw him in action this weekend.

This is what I've called for some years, too - top of the ball & the bottom of the boob. Well, you can't put that in a book. So, I agree it's not just the PC way of writing it, it's the right way. And it does recognize what we've had in college ball for a while. A couple of years ago, the NCA made an attempt to bring the top of the zone up - to what was in the book. It turned out that in application, nobody wanted it called that way - coaches or experienced college umps.
This is much higher than I call in men's ball too. It's not what wanted or expected, or tolerated. Several years ago, I was working in 2 men's tournaments in a town. One was a major tournament and the other was a 'C' tournament. After working several games of the majors, I had a couple of games on a 'C' field before finishing Sunday with the majors. After the first inning, I realized that both pitchers were irritated because of the lowness of the top of the strike zone I was calling - I had brought the major zone to a C game. Sunday, having a beer after I'd finished, one of the 'C' pitchers stopped by & we had a chat. They noticed, he appreciated the umpiring but
begged that I remember when I went from majors to C's - they needed the bigger strike zone.