Explain what the strike zone is?

[MTR]

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.

You keep on saying that, but insists that the change wasn't made because that is what the coaches want.

There is no uniform in the world that allows an umpire to determine where the bottom of the sternum is located. How can you possible disagree that something that is clearly visable versus something definitely not is not more discernable?

That aside, lets go back to what usually initiates this debate. "Why don't they call the strike zone like it is in the book?" In spite of the constant explanations that some of these stubborn folks just don't want to hear, actually changing it by blurring the line really doesn't change anything. The zone will be called the same, it just quiets the complainers which, IMO, is not the right reason to change anything. What next, widen the plate by 8" to accommodate those who still think a strike is determined by location of the catcher's glove?

[topper]

You keep on saying that, but insists that the change wasn't made because that is what the coaches want.

First I posted this:

The NCAA wanted to lower the definition of the top of the zone to match what was being called.

Then this:

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

Where is my insistence that it wasn't the coaches' decision? Believe me, I completely understand WHO controls the game at the college level.

There is no uniform in the world that allows an umpire to determine where the bottom of the sternum is located. How can you possible disagree that something that is clearly visable versus something definitely not is not more discernable?

That aside, lets go back to what usually initiates this debate. "Why don't they call the strike zone like it is in the book?" In spite of the constant explanations that some of these stubborn folks just don't want to hear, actually changing it by blurring the line really doesn't change anything. The zone will be called the same, it just quiets the complainers which, IMO, is not the right reason to change anything. What next, widen the plate by 8" to accommodate those who still think a strike is determined by location of the catcher's glove?

My post was in response to skahtboi's correction of me as to the reason for the change. I haven't heard from him, but you seem to have taken up his cause by pointing out something that is obvious to anyone who has been working college ball for any amount of time. Now if YOU have a credible take on why the change was made, let's have it. Continually reminding me of who makes the rules in college and stating your disapproval of that is both ludicrous and irrelevant.

[MTR]

You keep on saying that, but insists that the change wasn't made because that is what the coaches want.

First I posted this:

The NCAA wanted to lower the definition of the top of the zone to match what was being called.

Then this:

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

Where is my insistence that it wasn't the coaches' decision? Believe me, I completely understand WHO controls the game at the college level.

You asked where Scott could have gotten his idea and I simply pointed out from where that probably came.

My post was in response to skahtboi's correction of me as to the reason for the change. I haven't heard from him, but you seem to have taken up his cause by pointing out something that is obvious to anyone who has been working college ball for any amount of time. Now if YOU have a credible take on why the change was made, let's have it.

Already offered it. Tend to agree with Scott that it was basically just to placate those who couldn't live with it not matching the book.

Continually reminding me of who makes the rules in college and stating your disapproval of that is both ludicrous and irrelevant.

I don't disapprove of the coaches having the heavy hand in establishing rules for their game. I have a problem that so many people think that because the NCAA make something a rule, that makes it appropriate for all of softball.

I don't have to like the rule, either.

[skahtboi]

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?[/quote]

Sorry. I don't check in here often enough to engage in pissing matches. Unless you can do so maybe on a once a month schedule.

I highlighted the reason for my comment. You seemed to have answered it already yourself. All changes in NCAA rules occur because of the various coaches desires' for something to, in their mind, level the playing field, but in reality is giving them some percieved "edge." Some as a result of just one or two players (i.e. the chalked pitching lane.) Yes, this is just observation from years and years of umpiring. No, I don't have a source to quote. Yes, I read the reason given in the book by the staff. But they sure aren't going to say "the change was made because three coaches complained about John Doe constantly calling their players out on strikes at the letters."

Remember, we were told, many times, that there were "weapons of mass destruction," but that didn't make them real either.

[skahtboi]

[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?

Sorry. I don't check in here often enough to engage in pissing matches. Unless you can do so maybe on a once a month schedule.

I highlighted the reason for my comment. You seemed to have answered it already yourself. All changes in NCAA rules occur because of the various coaches desires' for something to, in their mind, level the playing field, but in reality is giving them some percieved "edge." Some as a result of just one or two players (i.e. the chalked pitching lane.) Yes, this is just observation from years and years of umpiring. No, I don't have a source to quote. Yes, I read the reason given in the book by the staff. But they sure aren't going to say "the change was made because three coaches complained about John Doe constantly calling their players out on strikes at the letters."

Remember, we were told, many times, that there were "weapons of mass destruction," but that didn't make them real either.[/quote]

[topper]

Sorry. I don't check in here often enough to engage in pissing matches. Unless you can do so maybe on a once a month schedule.

I highlighted the reason for my comment. You seemed to have answered it already yourself. All changes in NCAA rules occur because of the various coaches desires' for something to, in their mind, level the playing field, but in reality is giving them some percieved "edge." Some as a result of just one or two players (i.e. the chalked pitching lane.) Yes, this is just observation from years and years of umpiring. No, I don't have a source to quote. Yes, I read the reason given in the book by the staff. But they sure aren't going to say "the change was made because three coaches complained about John Doe constantly calling their players out on strikes at the letters."

Remember, we were told, many times, that there were "weapons of mass destruction," but that didn't make them real either.

So you don't engage in pissing contests, but aren't above correcting people based solely on YOUR opinion from "years and years of umpiring". At what level? I'm not sure your experience earns you enough credibility to correct someone you don't know. I know mine doesn't. To say otherwise is foolish.

[Patrick]

Scott has the credibility to correct someone he doesn't know!

[topper]

Scott has the credibility to correct someone he doesn't know!

Without knowing who I am? I could be just about anyone, from a member of the NCAA Rules Committee to a WCWS umpire to Emily herself.

You have bestowed a great deal of clout upon skahtboi.

Like I said...

To say otherwise is foolish.

[Patrick]

You are correct, sir, in saying that I don't know who you are. But I do know who Scott is...

[wadeintothem]

Oh yeah, I remember now.

A strike is when I call it a strike.