Dropped Third Strike

[John L]

We were playing fall ball yesterday in the sunny and actually warm Midwest and this situation came up. Bases loaded, no outs. Catcher drops third strike, batter takes off to first. Catcher throws to first gets one out ball goes back to home runner is safe. Could we have played it as follows: catcher steps on home plate for forced out then throws to first to get second out. My question is did we have to play the batter first because of the dropped third strike? Can the batter advance with the bases loaded with a dropped third strike?

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by John L

We were playing fall ball yesterday in the sunny and actually warm Midwest and this situation came up. Bases loaded, no outs. Catcher drops third strike, batter takes off to first. Catcher throws to first gets one out ball goes back to home runner is safe. Could we have played it as follows: catcher steps on home plate for forced out then throws to first to get second out. My question is did we have to play the batter first because of the dropped third strike? Can the batter advance with the bases loaded with a dropped third strike?

With less than two out, and first base occupied, the batter is out on
an uncaught third strike. You did not get an out at first base, as the BR
was already out, making that play unneccesary.
The batter can legally advance on an uncaught third strike, with the
bases loaded, only if there are two out.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

With less than two out, and first base occupied, the batter is out on
an uncaught third strike. You did not get an out at first base, as the BR
was already out, making that play unneccesary.
The batter can legally advance on an uncaught third strike, with the
bases loaded, only if there are two out.

To qualify this statement; a batter may advance on an uncaught third strike at ANY TIME, if 1B is unoccupied, or if there are two outs. If the bases are loaded with two outs, the catcher (F2) just needs to step on home plate while in possession of the ball.

Bob

[tibear]

The only time the batter can steal first with less than two outs is when there is no baserunner at first base at the time of the pitch.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by John L

We were playing fall ball yesterday in the sunny and actually warm Midwest and this situation came up. Bases loaded, no outs. Catcher drops third strike, batter takes off to first. Catcher throws to first gets one out ball goes back to home runner is safe.

No, B1 was not out, he cannot become a runner on third strike not caught with bases loaded and no outs. The throw to first was a waste of time.

Originally Posted by John L

Could we have played it as follows: catcher steps on home plate for forced out then throws to first to get second out. My question is did we have to play the batter first because of the dropped third strike? Can the batter advance with the bases loaded with a dropped third strike?

What force? This was a three way steal! Tag was the only way to go. Confused? Let me repeat....... the batter cannot become a runner on third strike not caught with bases loaded and no outs.

See guys, this is exactly the scenerio that we were discussing last week. The PU should have been "pounding" the batter out until someone got the message.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

No, B1 was not out, he cannot become a runner on third strike not caught with bases loaded and no outs. The throw to first was a waste of time.

What force? This was a three way steal! Tag was the only way to go. Confused? Let me repeat....... the batter cannot become a runner on third strike not caught with bases loaded and no outs.

See guys, this is exactly the scenerio that we were discussing last week. The PU should have been "pounding" the batter out until someone got the message.

I thought PU was to remove the apparant runner from 1B after all action has stopped. If BR actions should happen to go unnoticed by PU, then defense may appeal BR left at 1B. Has this "ole mechanic" been adjusted lately?

The play happens far to frequently. F2 and defense also have a reponsibility of knowing the situation. BR actions are within rules and are not considered interference. When and why should PU new duties include "pounding" the batter out until someone got the message?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by PWL

FED game the PU should verbalize, "Batter's out, batter's out"
I know Tee, I know.....

I read to verbalize and signal "No catch, No catch" as a result of the Eddings incident. I read to verbalize and signal "Batter's out, batter's out" as a result of the Eddings incident. These suggestions were made to avoid confusion on a close play when player's can't read the umpires mind and a decision must be made quickly. But an obvious dropped ball with 1B being occupied at TOP?

As of Jan 2006, all I could find was

Mostly, I just step back and let stuff happen."

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by SAump

I thought PU was to remove the apparant runner from 1B after all action has stopped. If BR actions should happen to go unnoticed by PU, then defense may appeal BR left at 1B. Has this "ole mechanic" been adjusted lately?

The play happens far to frequently. F2 and defense also have a reponsibility of knowing the situation. BR actions are within rules and are not considered interference. When and why should PU new duties include "pounding" the batter out until someone got the message?

You are correct in that the players are supposed to know the situation but there again, we are dealing with non-professional players, aren't we? If I stand there pumping out the batter and he still takes off, it's not my problem. If F2 throws to first, it's not my problem either. When the $hit hits the fan because the B1 took off, I am covered because I was doing my job. the coaches can't say a word to me about it.

PWL noted that in FED, we are supposed to pump out B1 if he takes off. I just took that mechanic to the rest of the my games. It has lowered the arguments tremendously.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

You are correct in that the players are supposed to know the situation but there again, we are dealing with non-professional players, aren't we? If I stand there pumping out the batter and he still takes off, it's not my problem. If F2 throws to first, it's not my problem either. When the $hit hits the fan because the B1 took off, I am covered because I was doing my job. the coaches can't say a word to me about it.

PWL noted that in FED, we are supposed to pump out B1 if he takes off. I just took that mechanic to the rest of the my games. It has lowered the arguments tremendously.

Someone quoted Jim Evans last year as saying (paraphrased) "The two players that need to know the call have their backs to the umpire." The implication: Call it!

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by tibear

The only time the batter can steal first with less than two outs is when there is no baserunner at first base at the time of the pitch.

There is NO way a batter/runner can steal first base.

Bob

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

There is NO way a batter/runner can steal first base.

Bob

I'm sure he was using it as a figure of speech only. It raised my eyebrows when I first read it too.

[mbyron]

Yes I thought this expression odd, too. Turns out "stolen base" is defined in something known as "Rule 10.08," which I had never read before. Anyway, it seems a stolen base is not credited when a runner advances due to a passed ball, wild pitch, or error. I can't think of any other way for BR to reach 1B on this play, so it doesn't sound as if it would count as a steal.

None of this, however, is part of umpiring, so I could well be wrong.

[tibear]

Of course, the batter/runner is not stealing first in the strictest sense.

Around these parts the term "stealing first" is used interchangeably with "dropped third strike". It shouldn't be but it is.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by tibear

Of course, the batter/runner is not stealing first in the strictest sense.

Around these parts the term "stealing first" is used interchangeably with "dropped third strike". It shouldn't be but it is.

And "dropped third strike" is also wrong. It's a "third strike not caught". And, just because these statements have been used for years, doesn't make them correct.

Bob

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

And "dropped third strike" is also wrong. It's a "third strike not caught". And, just because these statements have been used for years, doesn't make them correct.

Bob

And the reason "dropped third strike" is wrong, is because it perpetuates the myth that it's okay for the catcher to catch the ball on a bounce, and consider that a "caught third strike." By saying "uncaught third strike" or "third strike not caught," you capture the true essense of what the rule implies, that the ball must be caught on the fly in those situations.