I recently heard a coach tell his players that a 3rd strike that hits the dirt before it reaches the catcher (assuming that the batter swings, or it really falls off the table) is technically a dropped 3rd strike, even if the catcher catches it on the bounce.

6.09 says "The batter becomes a runner when ... (b) the third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;

I know a catch is "secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight..."

I guess I've always thought of the "catch" definition as applying to a batted ball, and have not considered a ball that bounced in front of a catcher but was secured by the catcher a "dropped third strike."

Does the coach have me on this one?

And since we're getting technical, I noticed the rule says "the third strike CALLED by the umpire." What if it is a swinging strike?

The coach is right. A ball that hits the dirt is no longer "in flight". The rule is NOT a "dropped" third strike, it is an "uncaught" third strike, and the ball that hit the ground cannot be caught for the out.

ALL strikes are called by the umpire, even the swinging ones. In the words of the late Bill Klem, "It ain't nothing 'til I call it."

SHORT ANSWER.
 

A ball that bounces is not in flight and cannot be caught. See OBR #2 'In Flight'. G.

what about a ball that hits dirt, batter swings and ball goes directly from bat to catcher's glove. Is this not a foul tip? Since ball was batted and went directly to the catcher, this is a strike. If third strike, batter out.

That is correct. Only a pitched ball and a batted ball can be legaly caught. Once the pitched ball touches the ground it loses it's in-flight status and cannot be caught but once the bat touches the ball it becomes a "batted ball" and regains it's inflight status and can again be caught. G.

There is a difference of opinion here.

Evans says it can be caught for the the third strike, batter out. Roder, while admittig there is a conflicting view among active ML umpires as well as Evans, feels that it cannot be caught for the third strike.

Does Roder explain his view on a bounced pitch batted into the air and gloved by the pitcher before it again hits the ground?

(I've been meaning to check my copy of J/R, and I hope I will at home tonight, but it seems to be the most interesting question that other thread left unanswered.)

LL

Garth, what is your call? Caught for 3rd strike or not?

Does Roder explain his view on a bounced pitch batted into the air and gloved by the pitcher before it again hits the ground?

Sure, it's an out. The difference, as Roder sees it, is that a foul tip is not a batted ball. It is still treated as a pitch.

See Roder's defintion of a foul tip:

A foul tip occurs when pitch nicks the bat and goes sharply and directly to the catcher's glove or hand and is caught by the catcher unassisted. A nicked pitch that initially strikes something other than the catcher's glove or hand (e.g., the ground, batter, umpire, mask, protector) cannot be a foul tip; it is simply a nick and a foul. The ball remains in play after a foul tip; thus it is the equivalent to a pitch that is swung at, missed and caught. A foul tip can be an illegally batted ball.

The part that justifies his view is: thus it is the equivalent to a pitch that is swung at, missed and caught. We all agree that pitch that bouncs, is swung at, missed by the batter and caught by the catcher is NOT a caught third strike, and the batter is entitled to run. Since Roder says a foul tip is the equivalent of a ball that is swung at, missed and caught, then the batter must be eligible to run if the pitch had previously bounced.

There is logic to his argument. If a foul tip is a live ball, then it must not be the same as a "batted ball", for a "batted ball" that is touched in foul territory is a foul ball, and is dead. Therefore, it must be the same as a pitch that was swung at and missed, and if so, it was not caught in flight, and the batter can run if this were the third strike.

Since in the in the situation posed by Lileaguer the ball was caught by the pitcher and not the catcher, it's an out, not a caught third strike.

Sorry for the delay. I actually do have to perform some revenue generating work from time to time ;)

Garth, you are trying to dodge the issue. So, let me state in clearly "if a pitched ball bounces in the dirt as it approaches home, the batter then makes contact with the ball and the batted ball goes directly to the catcher and is legally caught. If the batter had two strikes prior to the pitch, do we have a third strike out??

Good Lord, I'm not dodging anything. Why would I? I took your question as referencing the post of Lil Leaguer.

As to what I now understand is your question, which is redundant to this thread, I side with the Evans' position, not the the Roder position, that is: a pitch that bounces in the dirt prior to being "tipped" directly to the catcher's glove and is caught by the catcher, is a strike. If two strikes previously existed on the batter, it is strike three.

If you desire something from me in the future, we can do without the accusations.

Thanks for the patience in quoting the book for me. It does, however, leave me just as confused. His conclusion, "thus ..." should be based on the rules and shouldn't be used to justify any other rule interpretations.

But following the logic, a pitch with two strikes, which is "swung at, missed, and caught" is the third strike and the batter is out. A bounced pitch that is swung at, missed, and gloved by the catcher is not caught, since it is not in flight. This is, I believe, the reason for the extra defintion of "legally caught" in OBR 6.05(b). (Isn't this definition unnecessary, since it appears to be totally consistent with the defintion of "Catch" in OBR 2.0?)

Roder appears to saying that the ball is caught for the purposes of the definition of "foul tip" and not caught for the purposes of 6.05(b).

Maybe it is impertinent of me to suggest a third interpretation, but wouldn't it be more consistent to say the it just isn't a foul tip? I think that I could argue that a bouncing ball isn't going sharp and direct anywhere (I don't think that we want to argue that a bounced pitch can never be caught.) Perhaps this pitch should be considered the same as a foul ball that is gloved uncaught by the catcher.
First, a ball caught in foul territory is already a live ball (the phrase "live ball" isn't used in OBR 7.08(d), but it's pretty clear). (As I stated above, I can't tell if Roder thinks that this ball is caught.) Second, an explicit rule states that a foul tip is live (OBR 2.0), and another rule (OBR 6.05a) states that it doesn't retire the batter. But, most importantly, a foul tip is defined (OBR 2.0 again, but you knew that) as a "batted ball that ..."

LL

the redundance eludes me since I was asking for your opinion not Evans, but I do appreciate you making a stand on the issue. I know when you are on the field you cannot rely on the other posters but have to make a split decision on your own.

As for the accusation, I went back and reread my post and I believe that I was negligent in stating it clearly. I assumed you knew what I was refering too. I will try to be clearer in the future.

Judicious use of the "quote" feature would help.