Pitcher's Umpire
 

It has occurred to me that I am a Pitcher's Umpire. Not because I set out to do that, but in reviewing my calls, and my own interpretation of the strike zone, I think this is the case.

I give good corners on belt-high pitches (flatten/widen).

I think this is consistent with basic umpire mechanics. For example
> a Strike is usually called with loud emphasis (encouragement for P), while a Ball is even sometimes barely verbalized.
> We are in the business of getting Outs, not generating baserunners.
> I don't understand why one (i.e. Hitter's Umpire) would squeeze the zone, by calling Balls making it easier for Offense and more difficult for Defense.

Curious to hear thoughts about how others perceive themselves, and how they perceive others.

Also subjecting myself to criticism :o in case this is wrong thinking.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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??? :D

In no particular order:
Bottom of ball at Top of Knee
Top of ball at Bottom of Armpit
Any part of ball over plate, but with exceptions:
If you think of the strike zone a telephone keypad
123
456
789
and all numbers are in the "rule book zone"
1,3,7 and 9 are seldom called strikes
These are pitches that might be in the book zone, but can be "too high for an outside strike", or "too low for an inside strike"

To clarify my flatten/widen and the posters use of the chevron, 2 and 8 will be strikes if they are over the middle of the plate.

At belt high, I will go 4-extended and 6-extended, and if I had to spell it out, I will call belt-high channel strikes.

I told you mine, now you tell me yours.

P.S. I should have put a smiley on the comment about being in the business to "get Outs".

ooops :P

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:

http://rdtk.net/files/zone.jpg

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".

Don't get me wrong, I don't go in there saying that I am the pitcher's friend. This thought occurred to me a while back, and then this past weekend, one of the more experienced coaches in our area were discussing it, and he said he thought that I was a pitcher's umpire. This is what inspired me to toss it out here for discussion.

Most of the replies have been about "me", which is fair game. Was hoping to hear what more felt about themselves and others. But it is a good thread.

Black ????
 

[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?

[quote=Bandit;741034]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.

[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.