[quote=Bandit;741034]What book says "white"? The plate is the plate.

Black vs white
 

Like I said/stated I always find this interesting and upon the reply of Mr Irishmafia. I must ask. If a runner coming home only steps or contacts the black portion of the plate and then you have an appeal. Do you call the runner out for missing the plate or safe for stepping on the plate?

I consider myself an umpire. Period. I favor neither the offense nor the defense in my actions, at least consciously. I attempt to call the strike zone as it is defined, though of course, I am human and am prone to mistake.

Yes, there is an emphasis on a called strike. That is the nature of the business. However, the ball should be called in a normal, conversational, voice level. Never should it be "barely vocalized," or, as I have seen more than I care to mention, not vocalized at all. Every pitch is something, and it should be clearly noted by the umpire.

You have already recanted your comment about "being in the business to get outs," so I will take it that you did mean that somewhat tongue in cheek. However, there are many people who believe that is our objective, so I do take exception to that statement.

It appears, by your description using the number pad analogy, that you do squeeze the strike zone. 1,3,7,9 are all strikes, and should be called. Beyond the realm of 4 and 6 you have a ball, there is no strike zone "extended," or at least that I have heard of. Rather than extend certain parts of your strike zone, why not work on incorporating all of the strike zone as it is written? I know that I still work, after all these years, on trying to call a book zone, and not give up too much or too little on the bottom end, since that seems to be the hardest to set solidly. If we all focus on trying to enforce all the rules as written, including doing our best to call the strike zone as written, then we establish the balance in the game that we are there to insure. None of this "pro-offense/pro-defense" stuff.

Never - especially if it's the game-ending winning run!:)
Seriously - a foot on the blasck is going to look the same to me as a foot on the white.

It isn't my reply, it is ASA's. It has been in the clinic guide for quite a few years.

And egg shape strike zone is much better example than a bow tie. Fat end towards the knees.

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;741051]Most of the plates we see in the Florida panhandle no longer have the black, beveled portion. They are a 17" wide slab flush with the dirt. (Pitcher's dads still say, "Come on Blue! That one was on the black!)

With respect to a runner touching the plate (which is something entirely different than a pitch crossing the plate) I would consider the black as "part of the plate". It is the "side of the plate", in the same sense that the other three bases have a vertical side rising up from the ground.

If a runner touches, say, third base on the side of the bag without touching the 15" square top portion, would you consider her to have touched the plate? Yes!

The rectangle strike zone, as described in every rule book, is whole lot better than either.

[quote=argodad;741340]And that is fine. Unfortunately, not all plates are manufactured and installed equally on all fields for all levels of the game.

Therefore, ASA addressed something that needed to be addressed. Don't see a problem, since both teams are using the same equipment.

"Extended Strike Zone?"
 

Lurker on basketball board. My wife and I are coaching our daughter's 10U Fall League. We are on game 6 of the season yesterday. The crew announced to my wife during the pre-game meeting that they would be using the "extended strike zone". That term was not brought up during any of the previous games. One of our batters strikes out looking in the first inning on a ball that appeared off the plate (the catcher had to lunge out to catch it). After the inning, I asked if the ball caught the corner. The PU's response was, "it was within the white line?" I think she was referring to the batter's box line.

As a softball novice, let me ask... Is this typical? We've been really concentrating this fall in teaching our batters pitch selection, swing at strikes and don't swing at balls. A very difficult skill to learn for these young girls. Should we just table that skill for a few years and just have the batters swing at everything reasonable? Is that the expectation for young girl's softball?

Thanks in advance.

Not really typical. A lot of umps will "stretch" the zone to some degree when it is obvious the pitcher(s) are not good enough. Unfortunately, some umps start with bias toward younger players; which causes what you describe. Very unusual for an ump to admit doing "extended"; but in the long run possibly helpful to the young batters to know it is not a real strike.

Personally, I don't try to stretch unless a game is absolutely hopeless and approaching curfew. And I am terrible at doing it, so I end up with an inconsistent mess. :eek:

Yeah, I will expand the zone with really bad pitching, but then I have a big problem with consistency.

But with really little kids, you can't widen the zone much to the outside.

Did he touch the plate?

In most places, Fall league is much more developmental than Spring. Also... 10U is more developmental than higher ages.

So ... yes. I might never say "extended strike zone", but I have said, "Tell them to swing their bats".

I did one of these games and at the plate conference both coaches informed me that their regular starting pitchers were out and the backups had very little experience - asking me to widen the zone. I said... "chalk to chalk, nose to knees - that work for you guys?" And they agreed. Very first pitch of the game was nose high --- STRIKE! Set the tone, and the girls swung their bats.

No one learns from a walkathon.