Pitcher's Umpire

[CecilOne]

If we try to use the defined strike zone, with no intent to favor either pitcher or batter, and we end up with a zone larger or smaller than average, then so be it.
If we are biased toward getting outs or not, that is not valid.
I don't have much difference between the two calls, maybe more emphasis on strike 3, or less on balls ridiculously obvious.

[KJUmp]

....."my own interpretation of the strike zone" curious as to what that is.

[umpirebob71]

I never thought mine was the business of getting outs. I thought that was the business of the defense. I think mine is the business of officiating a game as fairly and equitabley as possible.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Well, I will tell what - we just finished our New Officials Clinic, and I will tell you the very first thing they try to get the new people to understand is the strike zone. Now both of our clinicians are or have have been clinicians at our State School, and are veteran NCAA officials, etc, etc. - just establishing credentials here.

Anyway, they begin by asking how wide the plate is, and of course some of them answer '17 inches' - then they ask -using a ball as a demo - ask how wide is the black, which is two inches on each side. They now say, ok we have 21 inches right? And the move the ball to the side a couple of more inches. Finally they ask 'The ball is 12 inches in diameter, right?' And everybody nods. Then the clinician goes how that if a thread is hanging off that ball over the BLACK - guess what we have? A POTENTIAL 33 inch wide plate - and then he gives how its a little wider in the middle, etc, etc... Remember this is the zone as PRACTICED.


The point is, T, you sound like you have an excellent zone, and I would work with you ANYday.

Myself, I get told by a lot of people - coaches....fellow umps..UICs that I have an excellent and FAIR zone. I know I tend to squeeze a touch on the inside middle, but I make up for outside just a hair. It took me a LONG time to get it, but I am very happy with mine now.

[Andy]

Tony - while I don't agree with your exact wording, I do agree with your philosophy.

The best explanation of the strike zone that I heard was from Emily several years ago - It looks like the Chevrolet bow tie logo. Narrow at the top and bottom, wider in the middle.

One of the other things I have heard and like is that if at all possible, the first pitch of the game is a strike! This tells everybody that you are calling strikes today and get the bats swinging.

I am generally pretty happy with my zone. I try to keep it right within the generally accepted guidelines that we have all been taught. I may miss a pitch or two per game (and I know instantly when I do), but overall I think I'm pretty consitant.

[RKBUmp]

I would be very careful about saying anything about an umpires job is to get outs. Makes it sound as if any close play will automatically be ruled an out. I like the statement above about our job being to administer the rules as fairly and equitably as possible.

The dimensions and figures you have listed are not entirely accurate, and if this is what your clinicians are telling you they need to check their math. ASA Rule 2, the plate is 17" wide and has a 3/4" black strip. The black strip is not actually part of the plate. Diagram of the plate listed on page 37 shows the plate as only 17" wide.

The ball is 11" in circumference, which makes is 3.5" in diameter. 17" + 3.5" + 3.5" = 24" wide strike zone. Give a couple extra inches off both sides and you have 28" zone.

Distance between the inside lines of the batters boxes is 30". Im all for calling strikes, but you call strikes that are inside the lines of the batters boxes there is no way a batter can hit them.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Distance between the inside lines of the batters boxes is 30". Im all for calling strikes, but you call strikes that are inside the lines of the batters boxes there is no way a batter can hit them.

Isn't that why they put them white lines on the inside of the batters box? If its between those lines it's a strike right???

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

Finally they ask 'The ball is 12 inches in diameter, right?' And everybody nods.

Did everyone nod NO? The ball is 11" in circumference, not diameter. Which gives you about 3.5" diameter. So the plate is about 29" wide 21 you mentioned + 4" (I'll round up) on each side!

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Did everyone nod NO? The ball is 11" in circumference, not diameter. Which gives you about 3.5" diameter. So the plate is about 29" wide 21 you mentioned + 4" (I'll round up) on each side!

ooops :P

[marvin]

tcannizzo,

Your zone does not sound like a pitcher's zone to me, especially the bottom (you wrote, "Bottom of ball at Top of Knee") unless you mean any part of the ball above the top of the knee (which is the rule in NFHS).

Don't most ruling bodies play fastpitch with a 12 inch circumference ball (3.83 inch diameter), not 11 inch (3.5 inch diameter)?

Here is a picture cropped from the diagram of the strike zone in the NCAA book:



The biggest difference between NCAA and other rule sets is that at the top of the zone the entire ball has to be below the limit designated by the definition of the top of the strike zone. NCAA also defines the top of the zone as "bottom of the batter’s sternum" while NFHS defines it as "the batter's forward armpit".

I used to think I was a pitcher's umpire because I tried to call every pitch that met the rule book definition of a strike a strike. Then I saw guys that call balls an entire ball width below the knees or a ball that was 6 inches outside strikes (closet part of ball is six inches from plate). So I no longer think that and I no longer care. I just try to "call it by the book".

[Bandit]

[QUOTE=ASA/NYSSOBLUE;740847]they begin by asking how wide the plate is, and of course some of them answer '17 inches' - then they ask -using a ball as a demo - ask how wide is the black, which is two inches on each side.

What book has "black" on the plate? I don't recall any softball rule book stating anything about "black"?

The plate is 17" wide. End of description.

Now I understand the extra width of the strike zone. AKA. The entire ball does not have to be over the plate to be considered a strike. But this "black" thing is always a courious item of conversation?

[IRISHMAFIA]

[quote=Bandit;741034]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

they begin by asking how wide the plate is, and of course some of them answer '17 inches' - then they ask -using a ball as a demo - ask how wide is the black, which is two inches on each side.

What book has "black" on the plate? I don't recall any softball rule book stating anything about "black"?

The plate is 17" wide. End of description.

Now I understand the extra width of the strike zone. AKA. The entire ball does not have to be over the plate to be considered a strike. But this "black" thing is always a courious item of conversation?

Wow, it has been a while, but ASA recognizes and instructs the umpires to consider the black, beveled portion of any plate as the same as the white portion.

[Bandit]

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?

[argodad]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;741051]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Wow, it has been a while, but ASA recognizes and instructs the umpires to consider the black, beveled portion of any plate as the same as the white portion.

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!)

[tcannizzo]

[quote=Bandit;741034]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

What book has "black" on the plate? I don't recall any softball rule book stating anything about "black"?

What book says "white"? The plate is the plate.