Explain what the strike zone is?

[MTR]

Softball Official Rules (1936). Rule 9-Fairly Delivered Ball

Strikes-When Umpire Shall Call One Strike
Section 1. A fairly delivered ball is one pitched by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman, that passes over any portion of the home plate before touching the ground, not lower than the batsman's knees nor higher than his shoulder. For every such fairly delivered ball the umpire shall call one strike.

IMO, the strike zone morphed to what it is today due to pressure from MLB teams. Since the management of MLB is driven by the income generated by the players, the umpires were probably instructed to call the knees to the waist. What happens if they did not? As we have seen over the years, there is a line of baseball umpires just waiting to get into a MLB ballfield.

Yeah, they told them to bring it up a couple years ago, but have we seen anything much higher than a ball's width above the belt?

Well, like everything else in this country, if we see something on TV, it must be real life and we deserve to have it at home.

Everyone trumpeted NCAA's introducing the "sternum" as a boundry for the strike zone, but it is not more a discernable reference point than a freckle on the batter's chest.

[topper]

Everyone trumpeted NCAA's introducing the "sternum" as a boundry for the strike zone, but it is not more a discernable reference point than a freckle on the batter's chest.

I've heard this from several ASA guys. One could argue that the exact location of a player's armpit is no more discernable than that of their sternum.

The NCAA wanted to lower the definition of the top of the zone to match what was being called. The sternum was the area that made the most sense for the height they were looking for. You name any easily discernable point between the top of the shoulders to belt. Even if you could, it may not be where you want the top of the zone to be.

[skahtboi]

Everyone trumpeted NCAA's introducing the "sternum" as a boundry for the strike zone, but it is not more a discernable reference point than a freckle on the batter's chest.

I've heard this from several ASA guys. One could argue that the exact location of a player's armpit is no more discernable than that of their sternum.

The NCAA wanted to lower the definition of the top of the zone to match what was being called. The sternum was the area that made the most sense for the height they were looking for. You name any easily discernable point between the top of the shoulders to belt. Even if you could, it may not be where you want the top of the zone to be.

Correction. The NCAA wanted to lower the definition because for years that was what their member coaches were wanting called.

[topper]

The NCAA wanted to lower the definition of the top of the zone to match what was being called. The sternum was the area that made the most sense for the height they were looking for. You name any easily discernable point between the top of the shoulders to belt. Even if you could, it may not be where you want the top of the zone to be.

Correction. The NCAA wanted to lower the definition because for years that was what their member coaches were wanting called.

Firstly, where are you getting your information as to the reason behind the redefinition? Yours was not the reason given by the Staff.

Secondly, who do you think makes up the rules committee?

[Patrick]

The coaches make up the rules committee.
The is one (1) non voting member, who is an umpire.

[HugoTafurst]

The coaches make up the rules committee.
The is one (1) non voting member, who is an umpire.

Who unsuccessfully lobbied against marking the pitching lane - so I hear..

[MTR]

Everyone trumpeted NCAA's introducing the "sternum" as a boundry for the strike zone, but it is not more a discernable reference point than a freckle on the batter's chest.

I've heard this from several ASA guys. One could argue that the exact location of a player's armpit is no more discernable than that of their sternum.

The NCAA wanted to lower the definition of the top of the zone to match what was being called. The sternum was the area that made the most sense for the height they were looking for. You name any easily discernable point between the top of the shoulders to belt. Even if you could, it may not be where you want the top of the zone to be.

Every player has a uniform with sleeve which has a discernable cut indicating the vicinity of the armpit or visible armpits when sans sleeves. As previously noted, it is the only common part of the uniform or body which applies to all.

[MTR]

Firstly, where are you getting your information as to the reason behind the redefinition?

Probably from you unless there is some other "they" than the coaches.

The sternum was the area that made the most sense for the height they were looking for.

Secondly, who do you think makes up the rules committee?

Which has been the issue with some in the past.

[topper]

Firstly, where are you getting your information as to the reason behind the redefinition?

Probably from you unless there is some other "they" than the coaches.

The sternum was the area that made the most sense for the height they were looking for.

This is not the reason for the change, just the upper limit they decided on once the decision to make the change was made.

Secondly, who do you think makes up the rules committee?

Which has been the issue with some in the past.

While I don't always agree with what they come up with, I don't have a problem with them determining the rules by which their game is played. It is, after all, their livelyhood.

[topper]

Every player has a uniform with sleeve which has a discernable cut indicating the vicinity of the armpit or visible armpits when sans sleeves. As previously noted, it is the only common part of the uniform or body which applies to all.

Putting aside that I disagree that they are more descernable than the sternum, the armpits are not where the rules committee wanted the top of the zone to be. And, as previously stated, that was not the zone they were seeing called.