What is this 'buffer zone' nonsense some are calling for when it comes to ABS challenges?
By Matt Snyder Apr 7, 2026 at 9:15 am ET • 5 min read 
Getty Images Welcome to Snyder's Soapbox! Here, I pontificate about matters related to Major League Baseball on a weekly basis. Some of the topics will be pressing matters, some might seem insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and most will be somewhere in between. The good thing about this website is that it's free, and you are allowed to click away. If you stay, you'll get smarter, though. That's a money-back guarantee. Let's get to it.
We'll probably be done harping on ABS pretty soon, but, for now, it is a hot button topic. Much like when replay was first implemented and then the pitch clock and other innovations, when there's a shiny new object in the sport we all love, there will be discourse. I've made my feelings known on ABS previously. The short version is I love it but that nothing is perfect. Oh, and the umpires are amazing, collectively. If you disagree, go take up Little League umpiring and work your way up the chain. Put your money where your mouth is.
Reasonable minds can disagree on the system as a whole. I respect the opinion of those who believe the human element was fine and we don't need to challenge balls and strikes. I get it.
There is one argument popping up on social media, however, that I do not understand. A few days ago, there was a pitch that barely -- I'm talking fractions of fractions of an inch -- nicked the strike zone and resulted in a ball being changed into a strike after ABS review. I saw the following comments:
"This isn't what ABS is meant for. It's an unfortunate consequence."
"The "strike by 0.1 inches" or "ball by 0.2 inches" shouldn't be a thing."
"My unpopular opinion is that I don't know if we need *this* sort of overturning like, I kind of wish ABS was more for the egregiously bad calls a Bucknor might make not 'this pitch was 1/32 of an inch in the zone actually.'"
There are a lot more of similar ilk.
I vehemently disagree. In fact, to borrow a quote from one of my favorite movies, I strenuously object.
The strike zone is a boundary. A pitch is either a strike or it's not. There is no "buffer zone" or area where we shouldn't overturn a ball into a strike because it's really close. It either hits the zone or it doesn't. I saw one comment that asked if we truly wanted a huge overturn in the late innings of a playoff game due to a pitch being in or out of the zone by 0.1 inches. Um, I mean ... yes! I'm emphatic here.
Do we need to check the official rulebook?
From page 158 of the MLB rulebook:
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate 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.
More importantly, though, let's look directly above and find this gem (I've bolded the important part):
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which:
- (a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
- (b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
- (c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
- (d) Is bunted foul;
- (e)Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
- (f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or (g) Becomes a foul tip.
This is very clear and there's no wiggle room or buffer zone. If any part of the ball touches the strike zone, it's a strike. Period. End of discussion. That's the rule. This is a boundary. It isn't any different than determining whether a ball is fair or foul, a home run or not, or a runner touched a base or not. It is absolutely cut and dry, black-and-white with no gray area.
And if there's a huge overturn in the ninth inning of a tie game in Game 7 of the World Series, even better! The call should be correct. I think the far, far worse scenario is an incorrect call ruining a game like this.
Again, this is a boundary call.
Think about other sports. Is a player out of bounds or inbounds in football? There isn't some buffer zone in replay that says, "oh man, he was really close so let's just leave the call on the field as is." Either he's inbounds or out. How about in basketball or tennis, determining if the ball is in or out? Again, either the ball touched the line (or went over it) or it stayed inbounds. There's no buffer that says, "wow, that was within one inch and that's close enough, so we'll leave the call!" No. If you can't tell, that's one thing. But we don't have that issue with the strike zone. We can tell one way or the other.
Often in discussions like this, I can understand the point of view on the opposite side, even if I disagree. This is not one of those cases. I'm lost. I don't get it. There's a review system in place. An umpire calls a ball that we find out was actually a strike and some people want it to not be ruled a strike? This is madness!
A strike is a strike. We have the ability to measure it. If you don't like using the technology, I understand. If you do like the tech but don't want them to overturn calls that are "barely" strikes or balls, I absolutely do not understand.
Join the Conversation comments
