dropped third strike

[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.

[justanotherblue]

YGTBFSM