Logic behind dropped third strike?
Jim Corioso
behind the rule that allows a batter to run when the 3rd strike
is dropped. Some suggested it is a freebie to the runner,
but I'm thinking it was designed to prevent something,
like the infield fly rule prevents double plays.
Also, when is it not allowed? e.g. bases loaded?
Any help is appreciated.
Stormhound
try to get there on a dropped 3rd strike.
The logic, to me, would seem thus: a strikeout is a putout, made
by the catcher, and probably not unlike a force out of sorts. To
make a putout, the fielder has to demonstrate control of the ball.
Dropping the 3rd strike obviously does NOT demonstrate control of
the ball, therefore the batter is not out unless he can be tagged or
forced at first.
It may be off, but it sure sounds good. <g>
Stormhound
Jeff Drummond
Requiring the defense to demonstrate control of the ball was probably
the original logic behind the dropped 3rd strike rule. However, that
principle was not followed in subsequent rules (bunting foul with 2
strikes, infield fly rule) that allow the defense to record an out
without even touching the ball.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"A good fielder has freed himself of expectations
and keeps his eye on the ball."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 27.
Stormhound
>
>
> In article <44cmf0$5...@news1.databank.com>, Stormhound <dcr...@exodus.databank.com> writes:
> > jcor...@connect.net (Jim Corioso) wrote:
> > In reverse order: first base has to be open, or the batter can't
> > try to get there on a dropped 3rd strike.
> > The logic, to me, would seem thus: a strikeout is a putout, made
> > by the catcher, and probably not unlike a force out of sorts. To
> > make a putout, the fielder has to demonstrate control of the ball.
> > Dropping the 3rd strike obviously does NOT demonstrate control of
> > the ball, therefore the batter is not out unless he can be tagged or
> > forced at first.
> > It may be off, but it sure sounds good. <g>
>
> Requiring the defense to demonstrate control of the ball was probably
> the original logic behind the dropped 3rd strike rule. However, that
> principle was not followed in subsequent rules (bunting foul with 2
> strikes, infield fly rule) that allow the defense to record an out
> without even touching the ball.
Agreed. Of course, things have changed even in the pitcher/batter
matchup. It used to be that a batter had to get nine balls to get a
free base. That number has dropped, although a few modern pitchers
seem to forget that from time to time (g).
The infield fly rule isn't a good example, because it was actually
instituted to protect the offensive team. Without it, fielders could
deliberately drop pop flies to get double or triple plays. The need
for that rule is obvious.
I would suspect that the foul bunting rule is likewise designed
to protect the defense (bunts can be difficult to defend) and to
require the batter to make at least one good attempt to put the ball
in play (a regular full-swing foul is certainly an attempt).
Stormhound
Lowell Selorio
: I would suspect that the foul bunting rule is likewise designed
: to protect the defense (bunts can be difficult to defend) and to
: require the batter to make at least one good attempt to put the ball
: in play (a regular full-swing foul is certainly an attempt).
Back in the olden days, players would bunt every pitch foul until they
found a pitch they liked. I think this was still the time where pitchers
would throw underhand. Anyways, to combat this, baseball instituted the
foul bunting rule.
--
Lowell Selorio
pog...@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~pogito
Clay D.
Jeff Drummond <j...@cray.com> wrote:
>
>In article <44cmf0$5...@news1.databank.com>, Stormhound <dcr...@exodus.databank.com> writes:
>> jcor...@connect.net (Jim Corioso) wrote:
>> >
>> > behind the rule that allows a batter to run when the 3rd strike
>> > is dropped. Some suggested it is a freebie to the runner,
>> > but I'm thinking it was designed to prevent something,
>> > like the infield fly rule prevents double plays.
>> >
>> > Also, when is it not allowed? e.g. bases loaded?
>> >
>> try to get there on a dropped 3rd strike.
>> The logic, to me, would seem thus: a strikeout is a putout, made
>> by the catcher, and probably not unlike a force out of sorts. To
>> make a putout, the fielder has to demonstrate control of the ball.
>> Dropping the 3rd strike obviously does NOT demonstrate control of
>> the ball, therefore the batter is not out unless he can be tagged or
>> forced at first.
>> It may be off, but it sure sounds good. <g>
Actually, you're not far off. Its just that a "strikeout" is not an out at
all, but a legitimate play of its own. See below.
>Requiring the defense to demonstrate control of the ball was probably
>the original logic behind the dropped 3rd strike rule. However, that
>principle was not followed in subsequent rules (bunting foul with 2
>strikes, infield fly rule) that allow the defense to record an out
>without even touching the ball.
Both of those rules had to do with plugging loopholes: players were
taking unfair (in the rulemakers of the times opinion; lets not reopen
that thread) advantage of exiting rules. The times when you don't have to
throw to first came up for the same reason.
The dropped third strike rule isn't something that was "added" to the
rules at all; it's one of the original rules in the book. Its been around
longer than "9 innings make an official game". It is not now, and never
was, "three strikes and you're out".
What the 1845 Knickerbocker rules (which I have in a book at home, but not
here at the office) say is something to this effect: that the batter gets
three tries to put the ball in play. After the third try, it counts as
being in play, whether he put it there or not.
Being "in play" after the third strike means that, if the ball is caught
on the fly, the batter is out. This probably was a rare occurrence in 1845,
since nobody wore a glove and the catcher played a good 10-20' behind the
batter, in order to catch it after a bounce. (Of course, under the rules
of the time, catching on one bounce was also an out.)
Not being caught means it is, basically, a ground ball, and you need to go
for the force at first or some other base.
For some reason, though, runners do not have to tag after a caught third
strike, so the analogy to a batted ball isn't perfect.
However, catchers eventually worked out a trick whereby you could
deliberately drop a third strike, and get an easy double or even triple
play when there were men on base. So the rulemakers changed it so that, if
a force existed with less than two out, the batter was out right away. It
is the same logic underlying the infield fly rule, and came in at about
the same time. That makes the times when you need to throw to first easy
to remember: if its a double play situation, you don't have to.
I really would like to see a dropped third strike with the bases loaded
and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
--
Clay Davenport jc...@virginia.edu
Meteorologist, UVA Environmental Sciences Dept; Coach, UVA College Bowl team;
Mgr/P/C/2B/3B/OF/SS, Darwin's Beagles (20-2), Season Champs! Playoff Champs!
Creator of the Davenport Translations (http://www.baseball.org/baseball/DT/)
Jeff Drummond
In article <44glrj$8...@news1.databank.com>, Stormhound <dcr...@exodus.databank.com> writes:
> j...@cray.com (Jeff Drummond) wrote:
> >
> > In article <44cmf0$5...@news1.databank.com>, Stormhound <dcr...@exodus.databank.com> writes:
> > > jcor...@connect.net (Jim Corioso) wrote:
> > > In reverse order: first base has to be open, or the batter can't
> > > try to get there on a dropped 3rd strike.
> > > The logic, to me, would seem thus: a strikeout is a putout, made
> > > by the catcher, and probably not unlike a force out of sorts. To
> > > make a putout, the fielder has to demonstrate control of the ball.
> > > Dropping the 3rd strike obviously does NOT demonstrate control of
> > > the ball, therefore the batter is not out unless he can be tagged or
> > > forced at first.
> > > It may be off, but it sure sounds good. <g>
> >
> > the original logic behind the dropped 3rd strike rule. However, that
> > principle was not followed in subsequent rules (bunting foul with 2
> > strikes, infield fly rule) that allow the defense to record an out
> > without even touching the ball.
>
> matchup. It used to be that a batter had to get nine balls to get a
> free base. That number has dropped, although a few modern pitchers
> seem to forget that from time to time (g).
Yes, but changing the ball/strike limits is minor tweaking compared to
the bunting foul rule or the infield fly rule. Furthermore, it's not
clear that those rules are either necessary or--at least--that the
goal they're trying reach couldn't be implemented in a manner that
preserves one of the original principles of the game.
Conversely, if they're going to violate said principles with the new rules
then why not abolish the dropped third strike rule altogether and make
it '3 strikes and you're out--no exceptions'?
Of course, who says the rules of baseball have to be consistent? :-)
> The infield fly rule isn't a good example, because it was actually
> instituted to protect the offensive team. Without it, fielders could
> deliberately drop pop flies to get double or triple plays. The need
> for that rule is obvious.
Well, you must have missed the Infield Fly Rule thread a few months ago
because I think the need for the rule is anything but obvious. But
regardless, there's little justification for giving the defense an out
if they can't catch what's supposed to be an easily-catchable ball. I'd
say that if the defense can't (or won't) catch an infield fly, then count
it as a foul ball. This would at least be consistent with the principle
stated above that the defense demonstrate control of the ball in order to
get an out while preserving the protection that you believe the offense
needs.
> I would suspect that the foul bunting rule is likewise designed
> to protect the defense (bunts can be difficult to defend) and to
> require the batter to make at least one good attempt to put the ball
> in play (a regular full-swing foul is certainly an attempt).
Well, a batter who bunts the ball is certainly _trying_ to put the ball
in play--he just wants to put it where the defense can't readily get to
it. A foul ball does the batter no good and only increases the likelyhood
that he'll strike out. It seems somewhat arbitrary to outlaw something
simply because it is successful; but yes--by all accounts--the foul bunt
rule was instituted because a few batters were excellent bunters.
The rule makers were (apparently) concerned that the bunt was becoming
too successful, but it's not at all clear that was the case or how the
foul bunt rule really addressed that. The batter still has 2 strikes
to bunt (3 if he is willing to risk a strikeout if it goes foul) which
seems like it would be enough, at least for the aforementioned good
bunter.
Personally, I don't think there was any need for the foul bunt rule.
I don't view a good bunter as a significant threat to the American
pastime; at least, not one that can't be countered by one or two
charging infielders.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"The ancient Managers were scruffy and shabby.
Their wisdom was unfathomable.
They were careful
as someone taking a lead off first.
Alert as a charging third baseman."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 15.
Jeff Drummond
In article <DFtvt...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jc...@aeolus.evsc.Virginia.EDU (Clay D.) writes:
[ Interesting history of dropped third strike rule deleted ]
> I really would like to see a dropped third strike with the bases loaded
> and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
> umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
I'm sure it must have happened.
A slightly more interesting variant of the above scenario would be where the
catcher inadvertently steps on the plate in the process of errantly throwing
the ball into right field. It might take the umpire a good five minutes to
explain why those three runners didn't score. :-)
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"In the pursuit of the pennant,
every day something is added.
In the practice of the Tao,
every day something is dropped."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 41.
Stormhound
>
>
> In article <DFtvt...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jc...@aeolus.evsc.Virginia.EDU (Clay D.) writes:
>
> [ Interesting history of dropped third strike rule deleted ]
>
> > I really would like to see a dropped third strike with the bases loaded
> > and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
> > umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
>
> I'm sure it must have happened.
>
> A slightly more interesting variant of the above scenario would be where the
> catcher inadvertently steps on the plate in the process of errantly throwing
> the ball into right field. It might take the umpire a good five minutes to
> explain why those three runners didn't score. :-)
>
why the runners didn't score. The batter can only attempt to reach
first base on a dropped third strike if first base is open.
Stormhound
John Marvin
: The rule makers were (apparently) concerned that the bunt was becoming
: too successful, but it's not at all clear that was the case or how the
: foul bunt rule really addressed that. The batter still has 2 strikes
: to bunt (3 if he is willing to risk a strikeout if it goes foul) which
: seems like it would be enough, at least for the aforementioned good
: bunter.
: Personally, I don't think there was any need for the foul bunt rule.
: I don't view a good bunter as a significant threat to the American
: pastime; at least, not one that can't be countered by one or two
: charging infielders.
I think that the foul bunt rule is very important. It seems that without
it, a player could become very good at intentionally bunting fouls. This
would make it much easier to draw walks. Yuck.
John Marvin
j...@fc.hp.com
David H. Thornley
Jeff Drummond <j...@cray.com> wrote:
>> I would suspect that the foul bunting rule is likewise designed
>> to protect the defense (bunts can be difficult to defend) and to
>> require the batter to make at least one good attempt to put the ball
>> in play (a regular full-swing foul is certainly an attempt).
>
>Well, a batter who bunts the ball is certainly _trying_ to put the ball
>in play--he just wants to put it where the defense can't readily get to
>it.
I'll disagree with that, Jeff. Suppose you're trying for a foul ball.
If you have to swing, you're running the risk of swinging and missing,
or hitting it fair, or hitting it in a way that's easily caught. If
I understand why the rule came about, a good bunter can lay down a foul
bunt much more easily. If you can reliably bunt anything in the strike
zone foul, you can reliably walk. This was considered contrary to
the spirit of the game, and the fould bunt rule effectively prevents
this, while allowing anybody who wants to bunt fair plenty of opportunity
(as you point out, two strikes at minimum).
David Thornley
"Quo bono?"
Allen Flick
: I really would like to see a dropped third strike with the bases loaded
: and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
: umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
Been there, done that...... I've seen it done many times, and though I
only umpire high school (& sometimes below) ball, I've been on both (?)
sides of that situation.
I've seen it occur & I've called the force out at home. I've inadvertently
NOT seen it, therefore, not called it, and caught hell for it.
This situation is like so many, in all sports, where the rules are in place
to cover it, but it's seen so seldom, few people (if any) can know all the
rules all the time. Then, when one of these weird ones comes along, the
ump has to think (some can ;)) and everyone thinks the ump is just making
something up 'cause he obviously doesn't know the rules, or he'd have
*immediately* made the call.
Sorry for the brief soapbox.
=================================================
Al Flick (ALF) [afl...@imtn.dsccc.com]
... A society cannot operate if everyone has
... rights and no one has responsibilities.
--- I have the right to say what I want,
--- and I take full responsibility for it.
=================================================
Jeff Drummond
In article <44se88$7...@news1.databank.com>, Stormhound <dcr...@exodus.databank.com> writes:
> j...@cray.com (Jeff Drummond) wrote:
> >
> > In article <DFtvt...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jc...@aeolus.evsc.Virginia.EDU (Clay D.) writes:
> >
> > [ Interesting history of dropped third strike rule deleted ]
> >
> > > and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
> > > umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
> >
> >
> > A slightly more interesting variant of the above scenario would be where the
> > catcher inadvertently steps on the plate in the process of errantly throwing
> > the ball into right field. It might take the umpire a good five minutes to
> > explain why those three runners didn't score. :-)
> >
> It would take a SMART umpire precisely no time at all to explain
> why the runners didn't score. The batter can only attempt to reach
> first base on a dropped third strike if first base is open.
Um, but wouldn't a SMART umpire be aware of Rule 6.09(b)? It permits a
batter to attempt to reach first base on a dropped third strike not only
if first base is unoccupied, but also when first base is occupied with
two out--as in the above scenario.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"If you open yourself to the rule book
you are at one with the rule book
and you can use it completely."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 23.
Clay D.
Stormhound <dcr...@exodus.databank.com> wrote:
>j...@cray.com (Jeff Drummond) wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <DFtvt...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jc...@aeolus.evsc.Virginia.EDU (Clay D.) writes:
>>
>> [ Interesting history of dropped third strike rule deleted ]
>>
>> > I really would like to see a dropped third strike with the bases loaded
>> > and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
>> > umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
>>
>> I'm sure it must have happened.
>>
>> A slightly more interesting variant of the above scenario would be where the
>> catcher inadvertently steps on the plate in the process of errantly throwing
>> the ball into right field. It might take the umpire a good five minutes to
>> explain why those three runners didn't score. :-)
>>
> It would take a SMART umpire precisely no time at all to explain
>why the runners didn't score. The batter can only attempt to reach
>first base on a dropped third strike if first base is open.
>
Well, it's easy to see where YOU stand on the umpire intelligence scale.
To quote from the rule book:
"6.09 The batter becomes a runner when_
...
(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1)
first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;"
Now look back at the first paragraph where I said "bases loaded and two
out".
Look at 6.09(b)(2) again.
Try to keep up.
Wazza
afl...@imtn.dsccc.com (Allen Flick) writes:
>Clay D. (jc...@aeolus.evsc.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>: I really would like to see a dropped third strike with the bases loaded
>: and two outs, a catcher bright enough to just step on home...and an
>: umpire bright enough to realize what the catcher did.
>
>only umpire high school (& sometimes below) ball, I've been on both (?)
>sides of that situation.
>I've seen it occur & I've called the force out at home. I've inadvertently
>NOT seen it, therefore, not called it, and caught hell for it.
>This situation is like so many, in all sports, where the rules are in place
>to cover it, but it's seen so seldom, few people (if any) can know all the
>rules all the time. Then, when one of these weird ones comes along, the
>ump has to think (some can ;)) and everyone thinks the ump is just making
>something up 'cause he obviously doesn't know the rules, or he'd have
>*immediately* made the call.
>Sorry for the brief soapbox.
>
> =================================================
> Al Flick (ALF) [afl...@imtn.dsccc.com]
> ... A society cannot operate if everyone has
> ... rights and no one has responsibilities.
> --- I have the right to say what I want,
> --- and I take full responsibility for it.
> =================================================
this as both a player of baseball and softball and an affilated softball umpire
with 3 years experience. When you stop and think about a call, people
immediatily assume you are making it up. WHY?????
Yours
Warren
Warren Duff
Student of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
Curtin University of Technology
Perth, Western Australia
Email : ed...@cc.curtin.edu.au
******************************
* *
* University Softball Club *
* PREMIERS 1995 *
* Minor Premiers 1995 *
* WASA Div. 3 *
* *
******************************