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.)

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

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.

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...

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

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.

No.
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.

YGTBFSM:eek:

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.

What research led you to this incorrect cause and effect?

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.

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

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

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.

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. :D

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?

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.)

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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

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.

...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.

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?

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.

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

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.”

Did you even read my post?

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....:rolleyes:

Yes, sir. Hence the quote and the rebuttal.

The rebuttal in which you asked questions which were already answered in my post?

Did you read my rebuttal? I didn't ask any questions.

Okay, ignorant statements, then. I was being charitable.