These are true statements which is one of the reasons there is just a single interpretation.

During my time, I've seen plates with black borders from about a quarter inch to more than an inch outside the given dimensions; Plates that were one-piece of white rubber with beveled edges within and outside the given dimensions, and have even seen wooden plates with rounded edges :)

And some chiseled from brontosaurus shoulderblades too, I suspect.

:) :)

Once I saw one made of stone with ten roman numerals on it

That's how you can tell it hit the black. But, how is it obvious it hit the black only?

IrishMafia

We use ASA as well, is that written somewhere from ASA or is that something that has been passed along through the years?

I was taught the same thing, consider the black part of the plate, but can't find it in black and white to show anyone when asked. We are a military community and therefore are always getting different officials in each year and now many are no longer seeing it that way.

Thanks for your comments.

I agree with you completely, Dakota.

It's the beveled ones I was referring to where it's physically impossible to hit black and not white (unless the dirt is dug way down). If a plate is made differently, such that it's more easily possible to hit black without hitting white, it seems to me it would be FAR from obvious that it hit black without hitting white.

Good Grief ! ! ! :eek:

It has been included in the ASA Clinic Guide since before they started putting them on a CD. Last I have is 2013.

One more reason to consider the black part of the plate. Game play. If we consider the black part of the plate we force teams to either strike out (watching the ball cross the black of the plate), or preferably put the ball in play.

I know a substantial number of umpires and not one has even said "I prefer calling balls and strikes to seeing hits".

If we slightly widen the strike zone we force the ball to be put in play or at least the batters to swing.

I hope I'm not taking the thread TOO offtopic by chiming in, but here's my approach: If the physical plate has a black part visible, it's part of the plate and I'm calling it.

The NCAA and ASA book define the plate as 17 inches across, but I have yet to take a tape measure out on the field. Neither book is clear to me whether or not that includes the bevel. I also have never measured a base to see if they are regulation 15 inches, but I have certainly witnessed some variation in the size and shape of bases. My logic is that for a given field, if "the whole base" (sides and all) is safe territory for the runners, then "the whole plate" is the strike zone for the pitcher.

Extending that idea, that's why I basically call the entire "river" + plate width for my zone for anything below varsity HS and college play. I'm only expanding my zone 2 inches off the plate for club ball and JV, which when you add the 4 inch diameter of the ball, fills the entire river. Early in the game, it's easy to find "the window" and settle in for the rest of the game: if any part of the pitch is over the chalk, it's a ball. (This is where I get philosophical with fellow umpires, since telling a coach where I define the zone in my mind would maybe be protestable for not following the letter of the book rule.)

I disagree with a bunch of the advice on this page, but the top-down view of the zone is a good visual for what I am talking about: The Strike Zone

(I don't work SP, so the physics of a ball hitting the black part and being a strike don't apply to my games. I have played SP, though, and damn it's frustrating batting and getting strikes called on balls that don't successfully make it all the way past the plate! Stupid matball, grumble, grumble...)

Thats not so bad, its when your getting the pitches that dont get above your knee called strikes is what gets really annoying. Especially in a league that still in theory wants the 6-10 foot height and 3ft arch enforced.

IrishMafia

Thanks. Just looked it up in an old ASA Clinic Guide.

Here is what is put out by ASA:

Home Plate:
a) If a pitch crosses over the black portion of the plate, it is assumed the pitch crossed over the white portion.
b) If the catcher is touching the black portion of the plate on a force out, it is considered to be also touching the white portion.
c) If a runner touches the black portion of the plate, it is considered they also touched the white portion.
d) (Slow Pitch) If the ball touches the black portion of the plate, it is considered to have also touched the white portion.

Makes it very clear.

Thanks again .

I'll take that bet.