dropped third strike

[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

[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

[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.

[jicecone]

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?

Nothing at all, as soon as you get to be an owner or commissioner of MLB, submit your rule changes.

[TwoBits]

Bainsey, are you a Little League umpire? Seems like I see the most confusion in D3K rules from those with a Little League background.

[DG]

I had a dropped 3rd strike a couple weeks ago with base loaded with 1 out. I called batter out, R3 races home and throw from F2 to F1 beats him and I call him out too. Offense mgr confused, I explained. Couple innings later, bases loaded, 2 outs. After 2 strikes catcher asks me if the ball gets away from him can he just tag the plate when he gets the ball, and I say yes. Smart catcher. Earlier event may have been school.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DG

I had a dropped 3rd strike a couple weeks ago with base loaded with 1 out. I called batter out, R3 races home and throw from F2 to F1 beats him and I call him out too. Offense mgr confused, I explained. Couple innings later, bases loaded, 2 outs. After 2 strikes catcher asks me if the ball gets away from him can he just tag the plate when he gets the ball, and I say yes. Smart catcher. Earlier event may have been school.

I had a similar (but opposite!) sitch last year. Bases loaded, 1 out. U3K, batter is out. Everyone takes off. F2 retrieves ball, steps on home and looks at me. Seeing me do nothing, F2 proceeds to stomp on the plate, showing me the ball. Runner from third slides in, I rule safe, F2 yells, "WTF!!!" and ejects himself.

The nice thing, I suppose, was that coach didn't argue with me at all and proceeded to rip his cleanup hitting catcher an extended new one.

[TwoBits]

Several years ago while umpiring low-level high school, D3K with a very large, slow-moving R1 and no outs. R1 takes off for second thinking he is being forced to advance on the D3K and is tagged out well short of second. Coach calming explains to him in the dugout the rule and that he wasn't forced to advance.

Two weeks later, I have the same team with the same situation and the same kid at first. Another D3K, and there he goes again! He gets thrown out again. This time, the coach wasn't so calm with him.

[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.