lol, nice one liner about the umps, made me laughQuote:
Originally Posted by Alloutwar
Printable View
lol, nice one liner about the umps, made me laughQuote:
Originally Posted by Alloutwar
1st off replay is a great idea, there is no arguement against in on foul balls/homeruns that make any sense, it all boils down to "If we allow them to use instant replay the machine will eat our brains".
Out/Safe calls, maybe, the NCAA version could easily work there.
As far a machine called Balls/Strikes, that a bit trickier.
Saying that camera angles lie, is really a vote against human ump, they have one and only one poor angle to call a ball/strike, while a machine will have several cameras at various angles, mapping the patch in true 3D.
Still there are way too many issues as far as calibartion/batter to work out for it to happen anytime soon (even if we let SkyNet start calling homeruns)
As far as uniform stadiums.. who said that replay was to make the game fair, fairness has absolutley nothing to do with it, its about CORRECTNESS not fairness.
It might start innocently enough - with using replay to see if a ball was really hit outta the park. I don't know why in the course of a 162 games it's really vital to get all those calls right, but let's pretend it is. But that won't be where it ends. It'll end with using replay to challange balls & strikes. Then it becomes an all-day game that nobody wants to watch and the whole thing collapses.
See instant replay will just be the 1st step to Skynet launching a Nuclear attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkcostas
See the NFL uses instant replay and the averge NFL game takes so long they can only play 1 game a week, NBA uses replay that why the averge NBA game time in 17.3 hours, and using replay in the NHL makes games take so long that had to cancel a whole season just to finish the previous years schedule. (I may need to fact check that stuff, but I'm fairly sure that its accurate)
I'm actually not so sure about this. Ball/strike and safe/out have historically been judgment calls at umpire discretion: Argue one of these, and you can be immediately tossed from the game. Home run or not, though is more of an objective call rather than a judgment call.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkcostas
If it stopped at home run/not and fair/foul, maybe, just maybe, I'd be able to swallow it. But the QuesTec ball/strike machine idea is, I believe, absolutely ludicrous. But slippery slope arguments are fallacious, so I don't think the argument that one form of instant replay will lead to more stuff along that line is a good one. So this discussion should be restricted solely to the effects of X alteration, not if X alteration will lead to Y alteration then Z alteration.
Hockey? Someone plays hockey? Is that a sport? You mean field hockey, right?
No. Period.
Umpires are players as well.Quote:
And why is that a bad thing? The PLAYERS should decide the game, not the umpires.
I find when people want to restrict discussions, they're worried where it might lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by BorgHunter
So, tell me. Why is the slippery slope argument fallacious? Because balls/strikes etc. have always been judgement calls? Well...up to now so have foul balls and homers.
You can't argue fouls and homers are more objective. THAT is fallacious. There are clear guidelines for what constitutes a foul or homer. There are also clear guidelines defining strike zones, and telling us when a runner is safe or out.
I think the 'slippery slope' argument is perfectly valid. The only way this works is if MLB does what the NFL did: Clearly express what may or may not be challenged, and levy a penalty on the challenging team if they're wrong.
No. There is no slippery slope. You set up rules. If the rules say instant replay can only be used on home run calls, that's what it's used on. And I don't see how it's not vital to make sure that the calls are correct...so you know, what the players actually do is what decides the game, instead of some guy's judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkcostas
Huh? No they're not. I don't follow this logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I don't think you need to have any penalties. You simply clearly express what may or may not be subject to instant replay. In my opinion, this should be fair/foul or home run/not. You have a separate booth umpire who watches the play. If it's disputed, you look at ask that guy, and he tells you. Simple. No slippery slope, no if's, just a simple "Yes that was over the fence."Quote:
Originally Posted by CatKnight
Geez, I hope to **** that there's no "challenges" implemented in baseball. Man, I hate that.
QuesTek should be used, as well as cameras for everything else that we can think of. They should be limited to post game review, advanced training, and auditing purposes though, not in game review. Like I said above, umpires are players as well. They have been, are currently, and should remain as independant participants of the game. I don't want to see players using any sort of advanced technology on the field either. Wooden bats in MLB are great, and I'd hate to see outfielders use some sort of binocular system or something similar to assist them in seeing fly balls. Heck, I don't think managers, coaches, or players ought to have access to computer systems in the dugout either. Technology should be heavily leveraged, but it should remain off the actual field.
Why? If the technology is available to make accurate calls, what's wrong with that? There's no way that taking 20 seconds to review a video of a home run ball can lead to binocular systems for outfielders. These are ridiculous slippery slope arguments. Nobody is talking about technology to increase the ability of the players. We're just talking about technology to make accurate calls so that what those players do has the outcome that it should correctly have.
The technology is available for hitters to hit the ball an additional 50-100 feet as well, yet we don't let them use aluminum bats. Why not?
Computer systems and additional communication devices are not allowed in the dugouts. Why not?
This isn't a "slippery slope" argument to me. Managers and players can't use technology to improve their play on the field, so I don't see why umpires should be able to either. Their play calling is a part of the game, good or bad. Just like players and managers, we can all hope that they'll learn how to perform to the best of their abilities, but they should do that without any artificial assistance.
The difference between umpires and players is fairly obvious to me. The purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules and call the game. The umpires aren't playing the game. They should get calls correct. They are not in a competition. If something is available that will increase the accuracy of the calls, I don't see why it shouldn't be used, particularly in areas like home run calls, where they are game-changing plays.
The umpires should get calls correct so that the performance of the players is what decides the game. They are the ones in the competition, and that's the difference between players using technology to enhance their on-field play and umpires using technology to increase the accuracy of the calls. The players are participating in an athletic competition. Athletic competitions are meant to be decided by the athletic performance of the participants. A binocular system for outfielders is beyond athletic performance. The umpire is meant to oversee said athletic performance, enforce the rules, and make accurate calls. An instant replay system for umpires is not beyond the scope of what they're supposed to do, as technological enhancements are for players. It improves the accuracy of their playcalling.
We shouldn't be hoping that umpires perform "to the best of their abilities." In a precision game like baseball, with clearly defined rules and yes/no outcomes, those outcomes shouldn't be decided by the differing abilities of men. They should be called correctly. There is no judgment call in a home run ball. It's either over the fence or not. If it is, it should be a home run. It shouldn't not be a home run because the umpire running out from the infield couldn't see a tiny white ball 200 feet away. There's no judgment in a play at first base. The player is either safe or not.
With such clearly defined rules and explicit yes/no outcomes, we should use whatever we have available to use to make sure those yes/no outcomes are as accurate as possible. This is distinctly different from giving players technological enhancements to their on-field play. I know I'm probably just repeating myself now, but the umpires should serve to make sure that the athletic performance of the game's participants determines the outcome of the game, and that means making calls with as much accuracy as possible.
Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought.
That's right, and in doing their jobs they are active participants on the field of play. They are part of the play of the game, and indeed are an integral part of the game play. They are therefore players.Quote:
The purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules and call the game. The umpires aren't playing the game.
Of course they should. Managers should make the correct strategic moves, and players should make the correct plays as well. They often don't though. It's part of the game.Quote:
They should get calls correct.
They help decide the competition, so they are a component of the competition.Quote:
They are not in a competition.
As I siad above, it should be used, and used heavily. It simply shouldn't be used during the play of the actual game.Quote:
If something is available that will increase the accuracy of the calls, I don't see why it shouldn't be used, particularly in areas like home run calls, where they are game-changing plays.
But they're not part of either of the competing teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
That is letting the performance of the participants of the two competing sides determine the outcome of the game. Sometimes, they fail to perform as they should. The rules of the game, however, should not be subject to this. They stay the same. A player is safe or out. A ball is over the fence or not. A ball is fair or foul. Mistakes in the judgment of such yes/no outcomes should be minimized as much as possible.Quote:
Of course they should. Managers should make the correct strategic moves, and players should make the correct plays as well. They often don't though. It's part of the game.
Component of the competition, yes. They are not, however, competing. I do not think that their judgment calls on plays, sometimes called from an angle that does not at all allow the umpire to make an accurate call, should decide the competition. I think the performance of the players should.Quote:
They help decide the competition, so they are a component of the competition.
And I disagree. If something is available to increase the accuracy of calls, I think it should be used. I want the outcome of a baseball game to be determined as much as possible solely by the performance of the two competing teams.Quote:
As I siad above, it should be used, and used heavily. It simply shouldn't be used during the play of the actual game.
And I'd just like to point this out to all. This is an example of a fine, civil debate. There are two sides, with two different opinions, both going back-and-forth on the points of the issue, presenting their thoughts. It's nice, isn't it?
No, umpires are not members of either competing team, but they do play a huge role in the play of the game, and therefore are playing the game. I don't think that element of game play needs to be or should be altered in any way. Of course mistakes should be minimized, but the uncertainty factor is, has always been, and should remain a part of the game. I'm not worried about any sort of "skynet", or "computers taking over the game" at all. Heck, I'm not even worried about any sort of slippery slope (there is obviously a difference between using cameras to assist refereeing and batters using aluminum bats). However, that human element introduced by umpires is, and in my opinion should be, an integral component of the game.
Players and managers make it even more a part of the game by playing to the umpires as well. Good players make their own luck, and part of doing that is learning how umpires work and using that knowledge to get calls in your favor more often than not. Again, it's just a part of the game.
9.01
(a) The league president shall appoint one or more umpires to officiate at each league championship game. The umpires shall be responsible for the conduct of the game in accordance with these official rules and for maintaining discipline and order on the playing field during the game.
There are official rules set up, the umpires job is to follow those rules, They are not "playing" the game any more than the foul line or bases are "playing the game".
Replay is not a "slippery slope", name one instance where it has, basketball? football? hockey? ... if replay is such a slippery slope why hasn't it happened in other sports? or are all baseball executives / owners / umps simply spinless morons who can't stop the machines ?
This will not happen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBOMYdu7b64
Oh, come on now. Everyone, from players to managers to the commisioner and the umpires themselves, knows that all umpires are human beings. You can't compare an umpire to a base or the foul lines. Umpires are not inanimate objects.
As I said above, human umpires, mistakes and all, are part of the game. Managers and players often play to that, and I for one do not see a reason to change that dynamic at all, regardless of the ability to do so.
The reason that I was drawing comparisons to aluminum baseball bats and computers and whatnot in the dugout is because those changes would be just as massive as using replay during games will be. There's only ever been one change as large as this, and that's been the move for fielders to use gloves. Other than that, the on field technology available to players (including the officiating staff) has remained fundamentally unchanged since 1871 (well, since 1920 I guess, since the change in the baseball is really significant). Wooden bats, a baseball, 9 players (10 now, in the AL), and umpires to enforce the rules. That's it, and I really don't see a reason to change anything now. The baseball was changed due to costs and neseccety. Gloves were allowed for safety. None of that applies to replay use.
Attachment 15876
Please Google "slippery slope" before using it.
(Note: to say something is a slippery slope is to imply that it is a logical fallacy, thus illogical or not valid, but it doesn't have to be wrong. To say something isn't a slippery slope is just that, saying it is not that one particular fallacy)
On another note, it's more a parade of horrors than a slippery slope that most people use. With, of course, a heavy dose of the "Appeal to..." fallacies.
Sorry, but I could feel my Jesuit professors cringing in horror.
I feel better now...
I guess it's just semantics at this point, but while they're "playing the game" in the sense that they are involved in it, they are not "playing the game" in the sense that they are participating in order to win and are doing whatever it takes to win. They are not competing. I don't think the abilities of men that do not hold an interest in winning or losing should affect the outcome of a game. I think that a game should be decided solely by the performance and abilities of the two competing teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I guess that's just something where we disagree. I don't think there should be uncertainty if it's possible to eliminate it. While it's not entirely possible to eliminate all uncertainty, it should be minimized as much as possible with whatever is available to do that. Uncertainty is part of the game, but calls shouldn't be uncertain because they have a clear yes/no answer. If a player hits a home run, it should be scored as such.Quote:
I don't think that element of game play needs to be or should be altered in any way. Of course mistakes should be minimized, but the uncertainty factor is, has always been, and should remain a part of the game.
The first quote I posted from Joe Sheehan sums up my belief on this perfectly (although I don't agree with his overall point):Quote:
However, that human element introduced by umpires is, and in my opinion should be, an integral component of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Sheehan
I don't see why that should be, though. What the players did HAS a clear answer. Yes, players do try to do whatever to get the call to come out in their favor, but if, for example, a player didn't catch a ball, but tricks the umpires into thinking he did, an out should not be recorded, because an out was not made.Quote:
Players and managers make it even more a part of the game by playing to the umpires as well. Good players make their own luck, and part of doing that is learning how umpires work and using that knowledge to get calls in your favor more often than not. Again, it's just a part of the game.
I think improving the accuracy of the calls and increasing the amount that the performance of the players is the sole decider of the game is a good reason.Quote:
As I said above, human umpires, mistakes and all, are part of the game. Managers and players often play to that, and I for one do not see a reason to change that dynamic at all, regardless of the ability to do so.
I think it is a necessity to get the calls as accurate as possible. In past times, they WERE as accurate as possible. They didn't have what we have now to increase the accuracy.Quote:
That's it, and I really don't see a reason to change anything now. The baseball was changed due to costs and neseccety. Gloves were allowed for safety. None of that applies to replay use.
Everybody is right that has said umpires don't do a bad job on the whole. It'd be really hard to do a bad job, overall, because the overwhelming majority of plays are obviously one way or the other. However, the minority of plays which aren't clear-cut when happening in real-time at the blink of an eye shouldn't be left up to judgment. They do have a definite answer, and that answer (safe, out, fair, foul, etc.) should be the call.
I think that they should have specific, reliable umpires for home plate. Stop putting the guys who aren't good at calling balls and strikes back there, and just get it right. America has millions upon millions of people, surely MLB car get together 20 or so people who can do the job the right way, every game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BorgHunter
Houston: I wish you'd stop quoting Sheehan. That article really annoys me. I disagree with his entire premise, and I find that opening statement of his condescending. Not to mention that it leads to the spurious argument I made earlier. If you're going to argue that the only peeps who should affect the outcome of the game are the players, then you MUST remove the managers, coaches and fans as well as the umpires.
Robinhoodnik: Are you aware of the training umpires go through? They have to come up through the minors just like anyone else. They get over 99% of the calls right, which is far better than most people can do.
No one ever gets it 100% right btw. It can't be done.
I've also found that 99% of the time when a commentator talks about the umpires making a mistake, it's because a call went against their team. I have never, ever heard a commentator say something like "Oooh....I can't believe he let us have that grand slam. That was foul by a mile."
Ditto with fans.
You know, perhaps we SHOULD try it out. Then all these whining b******* would have to face the fact that they were wrong and their team really does suck.
*******
Incidentally, I've been told more than once, and I tend to believe, that baseball has a lot of lessons to offer about life. Let's say the premise of this argument is right, and the umpires aren't as accurate as possible. Here's a lesson our youngest generations are having problems with:
Life ain't fair.
Corrollary: So you just get up again tomorrow and make it right.
My problem with replay in baseball is that it would change how umpires call the game. Reviewing fair/foul seems easy - unless the umpire called foul and all the players have stopped. Same thing for a homerun - if the umpire calls it a homerun that would just create massive problems in determining what should have happened. Homeruns reviewed and found to be in the park could be defined as ground-rule doubles - but that doesn't seem ideal. The question becomes - do the umpires hedge towards calling balls fair or not homeruns because that makes the review easier to accomplish.
I'm also just opposed to replay in general - the calls even out over time and I think it is totally unnecessary.
I don't think it's condescending. He wants the game to be decided by the players, not judgment calls on things where there is a definite answer. I don't find that condescending at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatKnight
Managers and coaches are lumped in with players, and I'd say that's obvious. Fans very rarely affect the game, and there are clearly defined rules in the case of fan interference. Once again, I think there's a clear difference here between umpires and the other participants (players/coaches/fans).Quote:
Not to mention that it leads to the spurious argument I made earlier. If you're going to argue that the only peeps who should affect the outcome of the game are the players, then you MUST remove the managers, coaches and fans as well as the umpires.
As I said, in 99% of the cases, it's 100% obvious what the outcome is. A home run that sails 450 feet is obviously a home run. A player out by 10 feet is obviously out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to get the 1% of calls that are hard to determine right. (I have no idea if 99% and 1% are accurate, but the point is, an overwhelming majority of calls are obvious)Quote:
Robinhoodnik: Are you aware of the training umpires go through? They have to come up through the minors just like anyone else. They get over 99% of the calls right, which is far better than most people can do.
I know for me, wanting instant replay has nothing to do with a play screwing over "my team." It has to do with getting calls correct for every team.Quote:
You know, perhaps we SHOULD try it out. Then all these whining b******* would have to face the fact that they were wrong and their team really does suck.
*******
I think it was gRYFYN1 that said this earlier in the thread. It's not about fairness. It's about correctness.Quote:
Incidentally, I've been told more than once, and I tend to believe, that baseball has a lot of lessons to offer about life. Let's say the premise of this argument is right, and the umpires aren't as accurate as possible. Here's a lesson our youngest generations are having problems with:
Life ain't fair.
Corrollary: So you just get up again tomorrow and make it right.
And allowing calls to be reviewed does not remove umpires from the game. Also, thanks for implying that favoring instant replay is insane and unintelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
I figured you were saying that the opposing argument wasn't sane or intelligent, and that ohms made the sane, intelligent argument better than you did. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I'm sorry, my mistake.
i agree, HGM and YH, take your lovefest off of the forum, go onto AIM or somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
I watch most Giants games and regularly hear Kruk and Kiup point out things like Umps saying that the Giant batter didn't go around when he did, and safe/out of the same nature. I can't say I have heard it on a home run call as those are usually clear-cut. But the two of them usually call it like it is, even if it went in the Giants favor and shouldn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatKnight
My wife and I talk about the games during and after and are pretty honest as well. I am not gonna kid myself, there is no point to that.
That said you are probably right about the majority being that way though. I think the ONLY time replay should be used is fair/foul, HR/not because there are times when none of the umps have a good look. All its doing is giving the umps a better set of eyes, its still their call. My gut reaction to the K-zone thing is no, not at all. But when I look at the consistency you could get out of that I start to warm up to it. No more squeezing certian pitchers or hitters, I hate when umps do that. If you piss an ump off and they start squeezing you, thats just not right at all. I guess I am undecided on that.
I did and it says :Quote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
"In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope: It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies"
Saying that using Replay on Homerun calls will lead to computers making all the calls and removing umpires is a "Slippery Slope" theory ; and it is totally untrue. There is no evidence to support that the theory that once replay has been used it will eventually replace refs.
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Frankly, I'm tired of both of them. Neither of them has any ability whatsoever to simply LET SOMETHING GO. They're both too stubborn and, possibly, pompous to just end a conversation, because they simply HAVE to get the last word in. I see them both as pretty much even when it comes to any kind of fault.
Edit : I should note that I enjoy conversing with both of them, and aside from when they 'communicate' with each other, have no issues with them at all.
I like quoting Boom Boom quoting ArcticBlast.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=159834
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
what ?
The only screen name on my blocked list is "BuddyBulletin" which is an annoying bot.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
I have no problem with using a replay system on close-call home runs, things like that. Since I don't think current tech is sufficient for anything beyond that, I wouldn't support such a move at this time. And I don't see how such a replay would throw off the rhythm of a game more than prima donna batters stepping out of the box after every stupid pitch to adjust every piece of equipment they're wearing already does!
THANK YOUThis is one of the things that gets me about the so-called "12 second" rule. It's on the pitcher. Guess what folks, do you know why pitchers are late? It's because of what Artic Blast just talked about!!! I know when I pitched, I'm NOT even going to look at the sign until he steps in the box, because you know why, HITTERS WOULD LOVE TO GET A LOOK AT THE CATCHER'S SIGNS. I never met a hitter that wouldn't love to know what's coming, even given when Tony Gwynn famously said he'd rather NOT know. Well, I don't know if I believe that, but even if its true, most hitters aren't Tony Gwynn. Replay may slow the game down, but think about the number of instances where replay might be a factor in a game and THEN think about the number of instances where a hitter steps out after EVERY pitch, adjusts his jock, tightens his gloves, rearranges his helmet, says a prayer...............................Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
So, it's OK for the umpires and/or rules procedures to delay the game since the players do? Is that really the position you guys are taking?
Besides, those delays (and I certainly agree that their annoying as ****) are really the umpires' fault anyway. First, theres nothing to say that the umpire must give a time out, and he can call time in at any time. What's more, if it comes down to it, he can call strikes against hitters or balls against pitchers if he feels like it. Personally, I wish that the leagues would instruct their umpires to speed up the games in this manner, but I doubt that they ever will. I have a theory that they (the leagues) believe that not telling the umpires to speed up the game makes the game more television friendly. Of course, their wrong, since you can't really cut away from a batter in the middle of a plate appearance. The leagues can use statistics like "Time between pitches" to show network executives that there's plenty of time for commercials during the games, though.
Anyway, as for replay and other similar technological improvements, this is really a philosophical debate regardless. There's not really a right or wrong way to go here, it's simply what some of us believe in, is all. The technology does exist to call a nearly perfect game, whether we're talking about home runs, safe/out determinations, strikes and balls, or anything else. I don't have a problem with the desire for a perfectly called game, personally. I think that's an admirable goal. I simply would like to keep technology off the field as much as possible.
There have been advances in helmets, catchers gear, gloves, and even bats. However, most of those advancements have been deemed necessary for safety reasons (helmets, catchers gear, gloves, and "body armor"), and I think that we all agree that basic safety can and should trump "the purity of the game". Advances in things such as bats and the baseball itself have been heavily constrained at the Major league level, and I believe that is a very good thing.
One big problem that I have with replay is that it partially breaks our connection with the "big leaguers". Baseball players from t-ball all the way up to the Major league level are all largely playing exactly the same game. You can stand at home plate at a baseball field in your local park and easily imagine that you're standing at home plate at a major league baseball park (well, usually you can, depending on how well the park is maintained...). Introducing replay is something that creates a barrier, a distinct difference, between how the game is played at the major league level and how the game is played by your groups' local pick up game.
Regardless, the biggest problem that I keep coming back to is that human umpires, acting on their own, mistakes and all, are an integral aspect of the play of the game. If the human eye can't tell if a pitched ball is really a strike or not, does it matter that you can tell with advanced technology? Being the batter at the plate, it may as well be a strike if you can't pick the ball up, anyway. If a tag is so close that it takes super slo-mo replay to determine that the runner was actually safe or out, does it matter that the base umpire called the runner safe? According to the rules, "ties" go to the runner. According to physics, there's no such thing as a tie anyway, and with cameras we could eliminate any doubt as to whether or not a base runner is safe or out ahead of a throw. Why shouldn't we eliminate any doubt? Because the play of any game relies on our natural, unaided perception of how things should be in order for us to maintain our interest. If all doubt were completely removed from situations such as this, then there's a huge aspect of the game that is simply missing.
Most importantly, having human umpires to call the game using nothing but their own perception is just more fun, and fun trumps correctness every time in my view. It's fun to be able to say "that stupid ump! he's blind as a bat!"
Yes, I'm fully aware of it. I've also read books and articles written by Umps after they're done with their careers. They will admit it later that they blow it more often than you'd think. They also admit that they'll sometimes "right" their wrong later in the game or during another game. They'll also admit to "giving the benefit of the doubt" to some players and not to others. They are often harder on rookies who "haven't proved they know the strike zone." and easier on vets who do. They'll bust a whiners balls, while letting a "good guy" have a little more. That's the sort of stuff that they need to get under control.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatKnight
I'd also love to see them call the strike zone as it's written. I'm tired of seeing a fastball on the lower half of a guys belt and down the middle called a ball.
Don't know about you CatKnight, but I don't remember the last time I've seen the above quoted strike zone enforced. Maybe when I was in Little League?Quote:
The Strike Zone is defined as that area over homeplate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.