Dropped third strike or not? The pitcher throws a pitch that bounces. The batter swing and missing for the third strike. No runner on first. The catcher catches the ball after the bounce. Is this a dropped third strike? What I had been told is that the catcher has to have an opportunity to catch the ball, so no it is not a dropped third strike. In the last game we played, I was told that anytime the ball hits the ground on the third strike it is a dropped third strike.

A pitch that bounces (after 2 strikes on batter) is ALWAYS a dropped third strike, provided it is swung at and missed. It has nothing to do with the catcher's chance at catching it, or not.

I agree, a third strike that bounces and is swung at and missed, is a dropped 3rd strike, whether it bounces in front or behind the plate does not matter. However, a ball that bounces in front of the plate, is foul tipped and caught counts as a caught foul tip.

Reference OBR 2.00 Definition of Ball. In summary, "if the pitch touches the ground and the batter swings at such pitch after two strikes, the ball can NOT be caught for the purposes of Rule 6.05c and 6.09b, which discuss a batter being out with a runner at first and less that tow outs, and a batter becoming a runner on a dropped third strike.

Most people would understand this better if the terminology was changed in the common vernacular to what we actually usually say here on the board:

UNCAUGHT THIRD STRIKE

Not dropped. The question - DID SHE CATCH IT. On a bounced pitch - no.

(And as noted above, a ball foul-tipped is completely different than one simply missed).

You are, of course, more accurate in your wording, and more consistent with OBR. However, four out of five posters to this topic typed the more commonly used expression, "Dropped Third Strike." We all know this MEANS "uncaught third strike," but I disagree that it is more commonly spoken (or typed). If this wording clarifies the rule for someone that is good, but it's just semantics, and all the same in the end.

"but it's just semantics, and all the same in the end."

Sorry, it's not "just semantics". "Dropped" and "Uncaught" have different meanings.

"Dropped" means released, which infers the ball was caught and then dropped or released.

"Uncaught" means the ball was not possessed.

There is a HUGE difference. If a third strike was "dropped", it means the ball was caught, and then released. That means the batter is OUT!

Just because 80% use the wrong wordage, doesn't make it right.

And if it is just semantics...

Why is it that everyone who ever asks a question about this subject calls it a "Dropped 3rd Strike" ?

I can not recall someone asking a 'basic' question on this subject who refered to it per the rules distinction, "3rd Strike Not Caught"

I think the act of saying one thing, when another thing is meant, can make it difficult for the person wondering to understand.

Most of the time, when someone asks me a question about a "Dropped 3rd Strike", and I say, "Do you mean a 3rd Strike Not Caught ?", they say, "oh, wait, now I understand", before they even finish asking me the question.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I guess this is kind of dumb to keep arguing, but an Uncaught and a Dropped 3rd Strike have the same result.
In your example, the batter is NOT out unless F2 secures and voluntarily releases the ball (unless, of course, 1B is occupied with less than 2 outs).

drop/uncaught
 

had a similer situation on tuesday the answer is easily found in one definition: catch.

A CATCH is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball.

if you use that definition then it is simple to decide weather a strike is "caught" or "feilded"