|
JM, I'm aware of the history. I'm also aware that rules in all sports are changed over time, when they're believed to be nonsensical. I have always believed this rule to be a mess.
"That's the way it has always been" is seldom a good reason to maintain anything, yet it's the only reason I've ever heard for the rule regarding strike three hitting the dirt.
Let's review. In a nutshell, when strike one or two hits the dirt, the batter is charged with a strike, and the defense did its part to earn that strike. When strike three hits the dirt, the batter gets the same result as a batted ball, and the defense doesn't earn that strike. Does that sound consistent and fair?
On top of that, the batter earns the equivalent of a batted ball, even if the ball goes into foul ground without touching any fielder in fair territory, something he'd never get if he actually put his bat on the ball. And, if first base is already occupied with zero or one out(s), then forget the whole thing.
What's wrong with a little simplicity? If the batter swings and misses, or takes a pitch in the strike zone, the defense has earned the strike, period. What's wrong with this rationale?
|