dropped third strike
 

nfhs. bases loaded, batter strikes out, catcher drops the ball. Batter becomes a runner and heads for first. catcher picks up the ball and steps on home plate thinking he has a force.
How do you explain this?

Huh? Your losing me. How many outs?

If there are two outs, the catcher is right - R3 is forced at home. If there are less than 2 outs, the batter is out and no one is forced.

With less than two outs, batter is out, next batter. With two outs, stepping on the plate is a perfectly legal force. Three outs. What don't you understand about that?

A simple but often misunderstood rule. Parents all yelling "but first base is occupied! first base is occupied!".

One crew member and I were discussing the origin of the rule and he sumised that as a defense you have to "earn" that third out. Made good sense to me.

I think part of it is also to prevent the defense from dropping a third strike on purpose to get a cheap double play. I think that's another reason it applies with only two outs.

I always thought you earned the out when the batter earned strike three.

IMO, it's one of the worst rules in sports when a strike can be treated the same as a fairly batted ball.

bainsey,

You don't understand the history of the game and its rules.

From the JEA discussion of 6.09(b):

JM

Who am I explaining it to? What needs explaining? I think I explain this by handing you a rulebook. :)

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?

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.

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.

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.)