Is catching a called strike too much to ask?

[amusedofficial]

The striek zone is established by rule, not by where, when, how or if the catcher catches the ball. The rules also anticipate, and address, a dropped third strike, which seems to indicate the rule-makers intent that the strike call be independent of hte catcher's handling of the pitch.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

The striek zone is established by rule, not by where, when, how or if the catcher catches the ball. The rules also anticipate, and address, a dropped third strike, which seems to indicate the rule-makers intent that the strike call be independent of hte catcher's handling of the pitch.

True, but we call strikes and balls based on how they are caught. So that is going to be a factor. Not the only factor, but a factor. And usually a dropped third strike is usually one that is swung at and missed.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

The rules also anticipate, and address, a dropped third strike, which seems to indicate the rule-makers intent that the strike call be independent of hte catcher's handling of the pitch.

That's not consistent with the history of the rule.

[charliej47]

A Strike is a Strike, but I was taught that how the catcher caught the ball was how I called it with some exceptions. To this day I follow those teachings.