dropped third strike

[mbyron]

Thanks, Bob.

I will add that the idea of a "cheap" double play should not be part of an umpire's vocabulary. If the rules permit a double play in a given situation, then it's not our business how the defense got it or whether it was "fair" or "cheap."

For an umpire, the rules define fairness. Unfair is playing outside the rules. (Students of the game are entitled to a different perspective, but be careful which hat you're wearing and who your audience is.)

[Rich]

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.

The earlier event was not really related, was it?

Please, please, please post again and tell us you didn't treat the first situation as a force play at the plate.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

The NFHS rule used to read that the batter becomes a batter runner on every third strike and in another section it said the batter is out when a third strike is caught or when first is occupied with less than two outs.

May still say this, but I don't think so (and I'm not looking it up now).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Thanks, Bob.

I will add that the idea of a "cheap" double play should not be part of an umpire's vocabulary. If the rules permit a double play in a given situation, then it's not our business how the defense got it or whether it was "fair" or "cheap."

For an umpire, the rules define fairness. Unfair is playing outside the rules. (Students of the game are entitled to a different perspective, but be careful which hat you're wearing and who your audience is.)

The notion of fairness and not allowing a cheap double play drives a few of the rules -- the infield fly, the uncaught third strike, and the intentionally dropped ball -- and understanding the reasoning behind the rules certainly helps in their enforcement.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Please, please, please post again and tell us you didn't treat the first situation as a force play at the plate.

Yes, please tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by 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.

No, sir! I filled in once for a LL game a few years ago, but that's beside the point. I'm not confused by this rule. I've known it for decades.

Originally Posted by Matt

The reasoning is that the defense has to complete a play to get an out ... Without a caught third strike, the defense has not completed the play.

...unless first base is already occupied with fewer than two outs. Then the fact that the defense hasn't "completed a play" doesn't matter.

It's an inconsistent rule, and it ignores the fact that the pitcher met its defensive obligation when he earned the strike.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The earlier event was not really related, was it?

Please, please, please post again and tell us you didn't treat the first situation as a force play at the plate.

I think that DG is better than that. "The ball beat the runner" makes it sound like he called a force out, but I bet he didn't.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think that DG is better than that. "The ball beat the runner" makes it sound like he called a force out, but I bet he didn't.

Then how did the catcher learn from the expereience that it could be a force?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The NFHS rule used to read that the batter becomes a batter runner on every third strike and in another section it said the batter is out when a third strike is caught or when first is occupied with less than two outs.

May still say this, but I don't think so (and I'm not looking it up now).

8-1-1. A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home bases in the listed order when: b. he is charged with a third strike; 1. If third strike is caught, he is out an instant after he becomes a runner.

[stratref]

Since so many of you are trying to explain how we got to where we are today with the rule, many of you are not going back far enough into the history of the game.

We are talking 1870's era ball, this was when the batsman was allowed to declare, "high", "low", "neither" as his preferred striking zone. It took 9 balls for a walk and 8 strikes for a batter to become "struck" (BTW the umpire had the option at the time to declare a pitch neither a strike or a ball).

This term "struck" is where we get the "K" from for a strikeout, because the "S" had already been used for the sacrifice.

I could go on for a page or so to explain why the rule is what it is today but to really see why here is a link going over the rule changes since the game of the 1840's Baseball History: 19th Century Baseball: The Rules

Jasper

[yawetag]

From Annotated OBR:

Historical Notes: The original Major League Code (1876) provided that the batsman was out if, after three strikes, the ball was legally held at first base before the batsman reached the base. He was also out provided the ball was caught by the catcher before touching the ground or after only one bounce. One must remember that catchers generally positioned themselves a considerable distance from the plate and it was the exception rather than the rule for the catcher to catch the pitch before it touched the ground.

The 1880 edition of the Official Playing Rules of the National League amplified this interpretation. A batter was out following three strikes if the ball was momentarily held before touching the ground, no hat or cap was used in securing possession, the pitch did not hit some other object before being secured. (These conditions were later encompassed in the term "legally caught".)

The first official case book ruling of “legally caught” appeared in the early 1950's and disallowed any ball which lodged in the catcher's clothing or equipment. The additional explanation regarding balls tipped and subsequently caught or not caught was added in 1976.

And, for runner on first with less than two outs:
Historical Notes: In 1887, the provision declaring the batter automatically out regardless of whether or not the final strike was caught was incorporated into the rules. An asterisk should be noted beside the year 1887 for it was in that year that the experimental "four strikes" were allowed.

The Major League Code of 1888 stipulated that a batter shall be declared out on three strikes (regardless of whether the ball is caught or not) when first base is occupied' "...except when two hands are already out." This is the identical interpretation used today.

The 1942 rule book noted that “...This rule was adopted to prevent the catcher from dropping the ball purposely to ensure a double play.”

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...unless first base is already occupied with fewer than two outs. Then the fact that the defense hasn't "completed a play" doesn't matter.

It's an inconsistent rule, and it ignores the fact that the pitcher met its defensive obligation when he earned the strike.

Did you even read my post?

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It's an inconsistent rule, and it ignores the fact that the pitcher met its defensive obligation when he earned the strike.

The battery earns that strike.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

The battery earns that strike.

I don't know what kind of point you were trying to make, but whatever it was, you failed miserably....

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Matt

Did you even read my post?

Yes, sir. Hence the quote and the rebuttal.