THE LIVING STRIKE ZONE
One of the most frustrating things for me as a baseball fan is the Strike Zone (the space over home plate that the ball can pass through for a strike if the batter does not swing). It is clearly and strictly defined in the rules of baseball:
Further, the pitcher is trying to fool the batter, which makes determining where the pitch went even more challenging. Add to that the tricks a catcher uses to try to fool both the umpire and the batter, by positioning and moving his body and glove when the pitch arrives and the job gets even harder.
This makes the Umpire's job difficult enough to begin with. So before I go on, I want to make sure it's clear I have a great deal of sympathy for these guys who basically make half the players mad no matter what call they make, and often most of the fans.
That said, Umpires are often pretty bad at calling strikes. They do this on purpose, not because of confusion. Here's what I mean: Umpires have "their" strike zone, the area that they call strikes in. This may, or most often may not be the actual, regulation strike zone. Most of the time, the strike zone is a few inches wider than the size of home plate (12 inches wide), making the strike zone significantly larger. Almost none will call a strike that is higher than the base of the batter's ribcage, a few inches above the navel. Some call a strike that is mid shin level.
What's more, some pitchers will get a different strike zone than others. Pitchers that are famous and very skilled will often get a wider strike zone. A new pitcher or one that is not very good can get a tiny strike zone. Pitches that clip the corner of the plate and angle off to the side are technically still a strike: as long as they pass through any portion of the strike zone and are not hit, that's a strike. Batters only get three of those before it's time to sit down again. Pitchers like Greg Maddox enjoyed a strike zone three to four inches off either side of the plate, and a pitch could clip any portion of that widened strike zone and be called a strike as it veered even further off.
And then there's subjective issues. An Umpire can have a grudge against a team or a player, and will rule strikes (and other judgement calls) against the people they dislike when its close. Sometimes an Umpire will make a boneheaded mistake, realize it, and give a "makeup call" later for the opposing team: a "mistake" in their favor in return.
In other words, Umpires have a "living" strike zone, it changes based on the Umpire and the players involved, it is not a fixed, absolute rule for Umpires much to the frustration of pitchers and fans such as myself.
The area over home plate between the batter’s armpits and knees when the batter is positioned to swing. Any pitch that is delivered through this area is called a strike.Thus, the strike zone varies based on the height of the batter and their body shape. This makes the job somewhat challenging for an umpire who has to within seconds make an accurate call from behind the batter watching a three inch ball that can be moving at over 100 miles an hour.
Further, the pitcher is trying to fool the batter, which makes determining where the pitch went even more challenging. Add to that the tricks a catcher uses to try to fool both the umpire and the batter, by positioning and moving his body and glove when the pitch arrives and the job gets even harder.
This makes the Umpire's job difficult enough to begin with. So before I go on, I want to make sure it's clear I have a great deal of sympathy for these guys who basically make half the players mad no matter what call they make, and often most of the fans.
That said, Umpires are often pretty bad at calling strikes. They do this on purpose, not because of confusion. Here's what I mean: Umpires have "their" strike zone, the area that they call strikes in. This may, or most often may not be the actual, regulation strike zone. Most of the time, the strike zone is a few inches wider than the size of home plate (12 inches wide), making the strike zone significantly larger. Almost none will call a strike that is higher than the base of the batter's ribcage, a few inches above the navel. Some call a strike that is mid shin level.
What's more, some pitchers will get a different strike zone than others. Pitchers that are famous and very skilled will often get a wider strike zone. A new pitcher or one that is not very good can get a tiny strike zone. Pitches that clip the corner of the plate and angle off to the side are technically still a strike: as long as they pass through any portion of the strike zone and are not hit, that's a strike. Batters only get three of those before it's time to sit down again. Pitchers like Greg Maddox enjoyed a strike zone three to four inches off either side of the plate, and a pitch could clip any portion of that widened strike zone and be called a strike as it veered even further off.
And then there's subjective issues. An Umpire can have a grudge against a team or a player, and will rule strikes (and other judgement calls) against the people they dislike when its close. Sometimes an Umpire will make a boneheaded mistake, realize it, and give a "makeup call" later for the opposing team: a "mistake" in their favor in return.
In other words, Umpires have a "living" strike zone, it changes based on the Umpire and the players involved, it is not a fixed, absolute rule for Umpires much to the frustration of pitchers and fans such as myself.
Obviously, since the strike zone is measured based on the batter's body, it will vary, but its variance is within the rules, it is set by an absolute standard. That's not the problem. The problem is interpreting the rules to fit the whim of the Umpire, the situation they are in, and the present team involved. I hate Joe Bzonski, I like the Chesapeake Channel Cats, this pitcher is known for his incredible control and deceptiveness, I have a hangover, etc.
What this does to baseball is makes it more random, it removes a standard that both batters and pitchers can rely on to do their job. The unstructured nature of the strike zone makes the rules meaningless - in effect, the very men charged with enforcing and upholding the rules of baseball are the ones disregarding and nullifying them. Based solely upon what they wish to be true and without possibility of recourse or appeal, the rules are being changed to fit the whim of the given Umpire. As a result, the game of baseball suffers, batters aren't able to pick their pitches or know as well what is a ball and what is not to judge what is best to swing at. Pitchers cannot reliably work within the specific rules to place their pitches and know what will happen.
This is what Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is a big baseball fan, and like me, he took the opportunity of his position to throw out at least one pitch for a Tampa Bay Devil Rays spring training game. The best part about being President is that you can throw out the opening day pitch for the first official game of the Major League Baseball season (President Clinton didn't care for baseball and never did - President Bush loves baseball and does every year).
Justice Alito was in Tampa Bay to give a keynote speech for a legal dinner with such attendees as Alito idol Robin Roberts (hall of fame pitcher for the Philadelphia Phillies). One of the things he brought up is the point I'm trying to make:
The proponents of the Living Constitution say that we have to adjust the meaning of the Constitution to fit how society and culture changes. Yes, they admit that when the document was written, the words in the first amendment that say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and at the time that meant that there was to be no established religion. They argue that today, this means something different. Our culture has changed, grown, evolved. We cannot simply prohibit the institution of a single state religion, we have to prohibit any religious imagery or language in any conjunction with the government in any way conceivable - at least not Christianity.
The idea is that when society changes, the Constitution must change as well, the meaning of the words alters to fit the way things are now, or at least the way we want them to be - the way a given group of activists prefer. This is where the contradiction is starkest. These proponents want the constitution - and thus judicial decisions based on it - to fit what they want. They desire the decisions made by judges to reflect their personal whims and their ideology. This is not necessarily (and almost never really is) what society or the culture at large embraces or wants.
For example, in the matter of gay marriage, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional for a state law to prohibit gay marriages. At that time every single state in the union that has had a vote on the matter - when the people as a whole gave their say - has voted against the idea. Even left-leaning, free-wheeling California voted by 60% against gay marriage. The state of Massachusetts even voted against the idea, and the legislature agreed, passing the law in question.
Activists, however, saw a world where gays could marry and wanted the situation to change to fit this world. They would argue that a living constitution requires a change to mold to the culture and society's desires, that as a culture changes, the laws much change to fit that. But culture was and is against this idea, and thus their argument and position on the law is inconsistent, to say the least.
The reason that activists go to judges to implement these kind of changes is precisely because society is opposed to their ideas. They cannot persuade 51% of the voters to go along with their proposals, and so they go to judges instead, to bypass the culture and society they allege they are urging judges to match in their interpretations. It is significantly easier to convince 4-5 left-leaning lawyers in black robes to take a position than hundreds of thousands, even millions of fellow citizens.
Judges in many states have for decades been appointed by left-leaning Governors, and even in states where judges are elected, the tendency is for a sitting judge to retire early, requiring the Governor to choose a "temporary" replacement to sit in his place. Judges rarely lose an election, and in fact often are unopposed because to run against a judge as a lawyer is not going to help you in future court cases under that judge.
Thus, the judges you face as an activist are going to be more sympathetic to your ideals than the general population, of which only about 30% are particularly left-leaning. Getting a majority of judges to think your way - in opposition to the culture at the time - is the way of trying to shape culture to fit your worldview. The living constitution is, even by the standards of those who support the idea, nonsense.
*Hat tip to Baseball Musings for this story
What this does to baseball is makes it more random, it removes a standard that both batters and pitchers can rely on to do their job. The unstructured nature of the strike zone makes the rules meaningless - in effect, the very men charged with enforcing and upholding the rules of baseball are the ones disregarding and nullifying them. Based solely upon what they wish to be true and without possibility of recourse or appeal, the rules are being changed to fit the whim of the given Umpire. As a result, the game of baseball suffers, batters aren't able to pick their pitches or know as well what is a ball and what is not to judge what is best to swing at. Pitchers cannot reliably work within the specific rules to place their pitches and know what will happen.
This is what Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is a big baseball fan, and like me, he took the opportunity of his position to throw out at least one pitch for a Tampa Bay Devil Rays spring training game. The best part about being President is that you can throw out the opening day pitch for the first official game of the Major League Baseball season (President Clinton didn't care for baseball and never did - President Bush loves baseball and does every year).Justice Alito was in Tampa Bay to give a keynote speech for a legal dinner with such attendees as Alito idol Robin Roberts (hall of fame pitcher for the Philadelphia Phillies). One of the things he brought up is the point I'm trying to make:
"One of the things I am asked is if I believe in a living Constitution," Alito said in his speech, referring to a thought that the Constitution can reflect the times. "Umpires face this very same problem. For example, do we want a living strike zone?"Your choices are simple: do the rules mean what they say, or do they mean what you want them to at the time? Is the point of rules to fit society's changes or are they to shape society's changes. Are they rules or are they guidelines we adjust as times change?
The proponents of the Living Constitution say that we have to adjust the meaning of the Constitution to fit how society and culture changes. Yes, they admit that when the document was written, the words in the first amendment that say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and at the time that meant that there was to be no established religion. They argue that today, this means something different. Our culture has changed, grown, evolved. We cannot simply prohibit the institution of a single state religion, we have to prohibit any religious imagery or language in any conjunction with the government in any way conceivable - at least not Christianity.
The idea is that when society changes, the Constitution must change as well, the meaning of the words alters to fit the way things are now, or at least the way we want them to be - the way a given group of activists prefer. This is where the contradiction is starkest. These proponents want the constitution - and thus judicial decisions based on it - to fit what they want. They desire the decisions made by judges to reflect their personal whims and their ideology. This is not necessarily (and almost never really is) what society or the culture at large embraces or wants.
For example, in the matter of gay marriage, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional for a state law to prohibit gay marriages. At that time every single state in the union that has had a vote on the matter - when the people as a whole gave their say - has voted against the idea. Even left-leaning, free-wheeling California voted by 60% against gay marriage. The state of Massachusetts even voted against the idea, and the legislature agreed, passing the law in question.
Activists, however, saw a world where gays could marry and wanted the situation to change to fit this world. They would argue that a living constitution requires a change to mold to the culture and society's desires, that as a culture changes, the laws much change to fit that. But culture was and is against this idea, and thus their argument and position on the law is inconsistent, to say the least.
The reason that activists go to judges to implement these kind of changes is precisely because society is opposed to their ideas. They cannot persuade 51% of the voters to go along with their proposals, and so they go to judges instead, to bypass the culture and society they allege they are urging judges to match in their interpretations. It is significantly easier to convince 4-5 left-leaning lawyers in black robes to take a position than hundreds of thousands, even millions of fellow citizens.
Judges in many states have for decades been appointed by left-leaning Governors, and even in states where judges are elected, the tendency is for a sitting judge to retire early, requiring the Governor to choose a "temporary" replacement to sit in his place. Judges rarely lose an election, and in fact often are unopposed because to run against a judge as a lawyer is not going to help you in future court cases under that judge.
Thus, the judges you face as an activist are going to be more sympathetic to your ideals than the general population, of which only about 30% are particularly left-leaning. Getting a majority of judges to think your way - in opposition to the culture at the time - is the way of trying to shape culture to fit your worldview. The living constitution is, even by the standards of those who support the idea, nonsense.
*Hat tip to Baseball Musings for this story
![[technorati icon]](http://img439.imageshack.us/img439/6169/techicon0vf.jpg)
Baseball, Constitution, Activism, Essays
posted by Christopher Taylor at 10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home