New to Slo-Pitch! The K Zone

[Matt S.]

After nine years of baseball, I'm making the move to slow pitch, and I already love it. But I wanted to see how people call their pitches. I've heard of two schools of thought-one is calling pitches strictly on where they hit the ground (i.e., even if ball crosses plate in a hittable area, but lands outside width of plate or deeper than expected, it's a ball) Others have said if the player can hit it, call it.

Thoughts? Thanks for the opinions.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Matt S.
After nine years of baseball, I'm making the move to slow pitch, and I already love it. But I wanted to see how people call their pitches. I've heard of two schools of thought-one is calling pitches strictly on where they hit the ground (i.e., even if ball crosses plate in a hittable area, but lands outside width of plate or deeper than expected, it's a ball) Others have said if the player can hit it, call it.

Thoughts? Thanks for the opinions.

Speaking ASA

Any pitch in which any part of the ball crosses any part of the plate when it passes above the front knee, but below the back shoulder of the batter as they would be standing adjacent to the plate should be ruled a strike.

Don't care where it hits the ground as long as it doesn't touch the plate.

[ref5678]

ask some other umps in your area how its called. Some leagues also use a mat:if it hits a mat behind homeplate then its a strike takes all the judgement out of it and i hate it

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Had a clinician tell me that mathematically any pitch that was 6 feet in the air at it's apex and didn't hit the plate should be a strike - given that it is not too high in the zone. Don't know that this is true having never checked the math myself - and I don't really prescribe to this philosophy.

You have said it correctly that many like to call Church mat ball (a mat is placed behind the plate and if the pitch hits the mat, it is a strike.) While others, like myself, call the strike zone based upon the batter's size.

Honestly though, what I have found is that the mat ball calls are what people readily accept; whereas, calling the strike zone based upon where the ball crosses the batter (as if they were standing at the front of the plate) gets some of them excited and gets me some strange looks. The catcher always wants to argue when a flat pitch hits behind the plate and I call a ball. They also want to argue when a big arch hits near the back of the batter's box and I call a ball. When a relatively flat pitch comes across the batter's waist and the catcher makes their catch well behind the batter's box and I call strike... then the batter wants to argue.

My response is usually, "That pitch was flat and too low, or too high and came down behind the batter. The batter couldn't possibly have hit it." or "That pitch came across the plate below your waist, how could it possibly not be strike?" Of course these comments assume the pitch height requirements were met - there is always the illegal pitch call to save your bacon.

If you understand baseball, you will also understand that where the pitch is caught (or hits the ground) has very little to do with where the pitch crossed the plate... but the catcher's ability can sure help sell those "questionable" calls.

Slowpitch has got a big zone... 17 inch wide plate plus the width of the ball (any part of the ball over the plate qualifies as a strike)... makes a zone that is nearly 2 feet wide! And it is a hitter's game so call lots of strikes.

PS. I also recommend covering up the black at the back of the the plate to alleviate any arguments about whether it hit the plate or hit the dirt (Dirt is what you want so you can call a strike.)

Have fun!

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Matt S.
... snip ... I've heard of two schools of thought-one is calling pitches strictly on where they hit the ground ... snip ... Others have said if the player can hit it, call it.

Thoughts? Thanks for the opinions.

Neither!
As Mike said, above knees, below back shoulder, some part over plate.

Another "unofficial" way to learn is to recognize as a ball any pitch they swing at right after a strike.

[Rick Vietti]

Mikes description is perfect and exactly how you should set your zone to.

Too many umpires get caught up with where the ball lands instead of watching the ball cross the plate and look at the batters stance.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Had a clinician tell me that mathematically any pitch that was 6 feet in the air at it's apex and didn't hit the plate should be a strike - given that it is not too high in the zone. Don't know that this is true having never checked the math myself - and I don't really prescribe to this philosophy.

You cannot use math to figure that out as it does not take speed into consideration. However, I have seen it demonstrated a few times at schools by members of the NUS. From 50', if the ball reaches 6', it will clear the plate unless thrown at too fast.

Honestly though, what I have found is that the mat ball calls are what people readily accept; whereas, calling the strike zone based upon where the ball crosses the batter (as if they were standing at the front of the plate) gets some of them excited and gets me some strange looks. The catcher always wants to argue when a flat pitch hits behind the plate and I call a ball. They also want to argue when a big arch hits near the back of the batter's box and I call a ball. When a relatively flat pitch comes across the batter's waist and the catcher makes their catch well behind the batter's box and I call strike... then the batter wants to argue.

I get some of those looks, but little argument. However, if you are calling legal pitches that just clear the plate between the batter's boxes a ball, you're setting yourself up for trouble. It's a strike.

My response is usually, "That pitch was flat and too low, or too high and came down behind the batter. The batter couldn't possibly have hit it." or "That pitch came across the plate below your waist, how could it possibly not be strike?" Of course these comments assume the pitch height requirements were met - there is always the illegal pitch call to save your bacon.

One more reason I prefer ASA's mechanic of calling it when it becomes illegal. There may be some second-guessing on the umpire's judgement of the height of a pitch, but not of his/her integrity.

Slowpitch has got a big zone... 17 inch wide plate plus the width of the ball (any part of the ball over the plate qualifies as a strike)... makes a zone that is nearly 2 feet wide! And it is a hitter's game so call lots of strikes.

PS. I also recommend covering up the black at the back of the the plate to alleviate any arguments about whether it hit the plate or hit the dirt (Dirt is what you want so you can call a strike.)

Don't worry about the black. It adds approximately 2" to the strike zone which brings it closer to 27" wide.

[oppool]

BUT what I was basically taught at Natl's for SP strike zone. Call anything that comes between the batters' boxes which are 6" from the plate on both sides that come across the batter from mid-chest(batter back nipple) to the front knee. Let the pitcher have 6' to 11' on the arc when they start getting over 11' start bringing them down(Illegal). Also would suggest finding a wall where you can practice throwing a pitch at different heights that you can see standing back about 25'-30', you will be amazed how low a 6' arc looks and that 12' is not very high to get you into your zone.

JMO's

Don

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by oppool
BUT what I was basically taught at Natl's for SP strike zone. Call anything that comes between the batters' boxes which are 6" from the plate on both sides that come across the batter from mid-chest(batter back nipple) to the front knee. Let the pitcher have 6' to 11' on the arc when they start getting over 11' start bringing them down(Illegal). Also would suggest finding a wall where you can practice throwing a pitch at different heights that you can see standing back about 25'-30', you will be amazed how low a 6' arc looks and that 12' is not very high to get you into your zone.

JMO's

Don

Actually, the NUS teaches 7/11. This allows a margin for error without kicking the 6/12.

And "between the boxes" works right up until the time you get a 6'6" pitcher throwing off the end of the pitcher's plate fully extended. And with movement on the ball! It is quite possible a strike will land in the batter's box and the pitcher expects to get that pitch. There aren't a lot of these guys, but enough to go around to make it worthwhile to understand it.

Call it a strike, and you will also separate the real batters from the wannabe real batters. The real batters won't blink an eye while the wannabe will be looking at and pointing at the mark in the dirt.

Same goes for this type of pitcher throwing around the plate. It may hit between the boxes, but it still needs to cross the plate. The catcher will even ask you if "between the boxes" isn't suppose to be a strike.

[BigUmpJohn]

Curiosity is getting to me. Based on what I've been reading, is there any such thing as a "deep" pitch? If the pitch arc is above 6' and below 12' and it crosses between the back shoulder and the front knee of the batter (assuming a normal stance), then it shouldn't matter if it ends up a good 4 or 5 feet behind the plate. I don't know if it's possible, though. But I'm sure it can happen, couldn't it? I've seen several umpires call "deep" pitches. Not me, of course. Guess I've been wrong.

[oppool]

There is only one mention of the word DEEP in the ASA rule book that I know of and it is mention when talking about the PU should not describe a pitch to the pitcher as calling a pitch DEEP no where else.


Now a pitch that is landing 4' or more behind the plate that had a 8' arc or more probably came across the plate to high on the batter and if its landing that far back with a low arc under 8' and above 6' the pitch is problably coming in with excessive speed(umpire judgement)


JMO

Don

[BigUmpJohn]

That makes sense. I guess I neglected the speed aspect. So, there is no such thing as a deep pitch. It's all related to the speed or where it crosses the batter. I get it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by BigUmpJohn
That makes sense. I guess I neglected the speed aspect. So, there is no such thing as a deep pitch. It's all related to the speed or where it crosses the batter. I get it.

Catcher: Blue, where was that pitch?
Me: Over the shoulder.
Catcher: Pitch, he said it was deep.
Me: No, I said it was over the shoulder.

Some catch on, others are oblivious, but no matter how they phrase it, I never change from "Over the shoulder."

[CecilOne]

BTW, good umpiring practice says don't describe a pitch except as ball or strike, unless asked. I usually treat "deep" as a vertical dimension, as in water. If I call it a ball because it was above the shoulder line and the pitcher or catcher says "Deep?", I just nod. It's actually high, but if you say "high" all slow pitch players think that means illegal.

One time after a very "high" legal pitch that landed in front of the catcher, the pitcher said "Where was that?". I then pantomined climbing a ladder and an axe swing way over my head. The pitcher cracked up, questioned no more and has been friendly ever since.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

You cannot use math to figure that out as it does not take speed into consideration. However, I have seen it demonstrated a few times at schools by members of the NUS. From 50', if the ball reaches 6', it will clear the plate unless thrown at too fast.

My point here is that if the ball reaches a 6 foot apex and lands directly behind the plate (this accounts for velocity of the ball), does that pitch cross the batter above the knee? The clinician said yes. I said I hadn't proven it to myself with the appropriate math (hyperbolic cosine I think).

I get some of those looks, but little argument. However, if you are calling legal pitches that just clear the plate between the batter's boxes a ball, you're setting yourself up for trouble. It's a strike.

Same point as above - did it cross above the knees?

One more reason I prefer ASA's mechanic of calling it when it becomes illegal. There may be some second-guessing on the umpire's judgement of the height of a pitch, but not of his/her integrity.

Agreed. But you know as well as I do that the 5.5' pitch that does land behind the plate comes mighty fast. It is difficult to get the delayed dead ball signal and the verbal "illegal" call out before the pitch is caught by the catcher. The 6.5' pitch isn't much slower and again did it cross above the knees?

Don't worry about the black. It adds approximately 2" to the strike zone which brings it closer to 27" wide.

You are right again but I'm not talking about the black on the sides of the plate. Leave them exposed because as you said it only makes the strike zone wider. I'm talking the black along the edges forming the point of the plate. Cover those edges so you don't have the batter's argument about that pitch hit the plate. The umpire can point to the mark in the dirt (where the black is covered) and call a strike for the properly arched pitch.

Hope that clarifies my comments. Tony