> EG:  DH> A cube of space, mid-chest (the letters) to knee, width 
 > EG: of the plate. 
 > EG:  DH> Some part of the ball has to enter this space for a strike 
 > EG: to occur. Right? 
 > EG:  
 > EG: Most defintely wrong. The strike zone *might* extend as much 
 > EG: as a couple inches above the belt for some umps or it might stop 
 > EG: right at the belt for others. 
 
Hey Ed!  I don't have a rulebook; what's the definition, then?  As I've  
understood it (as a catcher through HS), this was what was acceptable.   
Sure, some guys would call it either a bit lower or higher (belt,  
mid-thigh), but the plate was the plate.  No screwing around.  If a  pitch 
"painted" the outside part, then so be it -- it was a helluva  pitch.  
Vertical was the domain of the home plate umpire, but the  
*width* of the strike zone was inviolate.  Unencroachable.  *That's*  
what's got me so all-fired up about what we've been seeing in the last  two 
weeks.  If it's off the plate it's * OFF THE PLATE!!! *.  How can  
*anyone* call a strike on a pitch that's 8-10" outside?!?!!?  (I'm  
referencing Hernandez/Gregg).   
 
IOW, sure: there may be some discrepency about the *verticality* of the  
strike zone, but there should **never** be a doubt about the  Horizontality 
[did I just coin a word?] of the strike zone. 
 
Dave 
--- Opus-CBCS 1.79.x
---------------