dropped third strike

[bainsey]

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?

[johnnyg08]

The ball must be caught (and a couple of other things) for there to be an out.

Just like a ground ball that is thrown to retire the batter/runner at 1B.

F3 must catch the ball for there to be a put out. If F2 doesn't catch strike three we do not have a put out.

It's pretty simple really.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

The ball must be caught (and a couple of other things) for there to be an out.

Just like a ground ball that is thrown to retire the batter/runner at 1B.

F3 must catch the ball for there to be a put out. If F2 doesn't catch strike three we do not have a put out.

It's pretty simple really.

Except that everything you just said is incredibly wrong. Since when does F3 have to catch the ball? Obviously never - we've all seen great scoops by F3 on bouncing throws.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Except that everything you just said is incredibly wrong. Since when does F3 have to catch the ball? Obviously never - we've all seen great scoops by F3 on bouncing throws.

Haven't seen it on a pitch lately though. You know what I mean.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Haven't seen it on a pitch lately though. You know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. You are saying that the reason for the catcher having to catch the ball (on the fly) is because "The ball must be caught ... for there to be an out". But that's simply not true at other positions. You're trying to parallel two things that are perpendicular. Your analogy is 100% flawed, as is your premise. The whole post made no sense. The catcher has to catch the ball because the ball must be caught for there to be an out ... except it doesn't... unless you're the catcher. Huh?

"F3 must catch the ball for there to be a put out." Not true - it can bounce.
"If F2 doesn't catch strike three we do not have a put out." True.

Completely the opposite - so why use one to explain the reason for the other?

(No worries ... last week, my boss said, "These two situations are exactly the same, except that they are opposites." Kind of like you just did.)

[johnnyg08]

It's a pitched ball that must be caught.

So you're saying that F3 must drop the ball for there to be an out at 1B?

Or should we say secure possession in either his hand or glove for there to be an out at 1B?

If I wanted to write like an attorney, I would've become one and begun writing legal briefs. I'm not interested in you picking apart my post due to a couple classes of logic and rhetoric that you took in college. You know exactly what I mean...whether you agree on how I stated it...which you obviously don't, I'm an umpire, not a writer which is probably okay for both of us.

[MD Longhorn]

Johnny - I'm not being a lawyer or a wordsmith. And I don't have the faintest clue where you just took my post. Complete nonsense. Honestly, after my first post i was expecting you to say, "Sorry ... didn't write what I meant... here's what I meant:"

But you're defending this drivel? Really?

Here's what you posted...

The ball must be caught (and a couple of other things) for there to be an out.

No, it doesn't - it can be fielded on the bounce.

Just like a ground ball that is thrown to retire the batter/runner at 1B.

No. Just completely unlike a ground ball - a GB must be fielded and possessed ... a pitched ball must be CAUGHT. Just exactly completely NOT like a ground ball.

F3 must catch the ball for there to be a put out.

No.

If F2 doesn't catch strike three we do not have a put out.

Yes - 100% different from the other fielders.

For some reason, you're comparing F2 to F3 and explaining that F2 needs to catch it on the fly, "Just like" F3 must. You know better and I can't believe you're defending it.

Except for the 4th sentence, all of these sentences are simply wrong. And I'm not sure why anyone would think they could answer the question regarding why F2 much catch a 3rd strike on the fly to any other situation - the catcher's responsibility here is singular and unique.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

The fact that most don't want it. It adds an element to the game. It may create a little more action in the game. The offense still has an opportunity to turn a bad thing into something positive.

It's part of baseball and I, for one, want it to stay the way it is. It keeps the offense, defense, and umpire on their toes and paying attention to the situation.

[PeteBooth]

The same reasoning that the rules allow a runner to over-run first base without liability to be put out.

It adds excitement to the game.

Pete Booth

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The same reasoning that the rules allow a runner to over-run first base without liability to be put out.

I don't see your parallel at all, Pete.

GA said it best, though, and that's "we don't want to change it." Any of us could make up a rule that adds excitement to any game, but ultimately, would that rule make sense in helping to determine the better team? I don't see how this rule does that at all, particularly when you're bailing out a batter who struck out, and punishing a pitcher who earned that third strike.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The same reasoning that the rules allow a runner to over-run first base without liability to be put out.

It adds excitement to the game.

Pete Booth

What research led you to this incorrect cause and effect?

[Forest Ump]

Ump JM put it out there as to why a batter becomes a runner on an uncaught third strike. It's been that way a long, long time. It's part of the game. It still amazes me when young players, new dad coaches, and new parent (grandparent) fans act as if this is something new that they have never heard of before. Of course they don't understand it. They think the game is simple. Hit, catch, and throw. Try to explain the bases occupied with less than two outs rule and you get that deer in the headlights look. It's there to protect the offense from getting a cheap double play. The game is balanced between offense and defense.

[gotblue?]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

It's there to protect the offense from getting a cheap double play. The game is balanced between offense and defense.

I am not trying to take this part of your post out of context, but I think that there may be a disconnect here.

An uncaught third strike would only result in a cheap double play if the rule is that a batter is allowed to advance on any uncaught third strike where there would be, as a result of the baserunner being able to advance, forces at at least two bases (i.e., 1B occupied), with less than two out, or if there are already two out. So, yes, the current rule prevents such a cheap DP.

Those who are arguing that the rule makes no sense seem to be arguing that the concept of allowing a batter to attempt to attain 1B after a 3rd strike (caught or uncaught) should be done away with, and/or, possibly, in their minds, should never have been part of the rules. If the batter is not able to attempt to attain 1B, then no baserunners are being forced to advance, and no "cheap" DPs are available.

I think those in the latter camp are questioning why there was ever a rule allowing the batter to advance after "striking out". Have I missed the rationale for this? (other than a couple of opinions, from well-regarded posters, that it possibl was intended to make the game more exciting)? Also, it appears that the rule was changed along the way to allowing a batter to attempt to attain 1B only on an "uncaught" third strike, as opposed to any third strike. If that is correct, what was the rationale for that rule change?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by gotblue?

I think those in the latter camp are questioning why there was ever a rule allowing the batter to advance after "striking out". Have I missed the rationale for this? (other than a couple of opinions, from well-regarded posters, that it possibl was intended to make the game more exciting)? Also, it appears that the rule was changed along the way to allowing a batter to attempt to attain 1B only on an "uncaught" third strike, as opposed to any third strike. If that is correct, what was the rationale for that rule change?

The reasoning is that the defense has to complete a play to get an out, whether it is a tag of a base or runner, a caught batted ball, or a strikeout. Without a caught third strike, the defense has not completed the play.

Now, here's where the avoidance of a cheap double play comes in. The rule is written as such to prevent the defense from not completing the play and gaining an advantage by doing so (similar to an intentionally dropped batted ball in the infield or the infield fly rule.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by gotblue?

I think those in the latter camp are questioning why there was ever a rule allowing the batter to advance after "striking out". Have I missed the rationale for this? (other than a couple of opinions, from well-regarded posters, that it possibl was intended to make the game more exciting)? Also, it appears that the rule was changed along the way to allowing a batter to attempt to attain 1B only on an "uncaught" third strike, as opposed to any third strike. If that is correct, what was the rationale for that rule change?

It's been in the game from the beginning.

First, the batter became a runner on every "third" strike (or whatever the number was then).

When the catcher played well back of the batter, and the ball was softer and quickly became out-of-round, and no one used gloves, it was no sure thing that the BR would be out.

As the catcher moved to the current position, and used gloves, it became "boring" to have to make the play when the strike was caught. So, the rule was changed so that the batter became a runner only when the strike was uncaught.

Then, crafty catchers realized they could get two outs if they didn't catch the third strike in certain situations. So, the rule was changed to the current rule.