I am sure there may be some that will accuse me of sour grapes when they read this since this rule went against us last night, but this has been a rule I have hated as long as I have known about it and have hated it when it went against my team and when it helped my team. The rule is the batter being able to advance on a swinging third strike if the ball gets away. Why does the batter get rewarded for swinging and missing a pitch so bad the catcher can't even stop it? A batter can't advance to first on a fly ball caught in the outfield or get to stay at first on a ground out to short. In every other instance an out is an out. What makes it even more asinine is that the pitcher still gets credit for a strike out. Now, if in game three we score the winning run thanks to that rule I will take it, don't get me wrong, but I will also still think it is the dumbest rule in baseball and wish it were not in effect.
Stupidest rule in college baseball
- Thread starter starkvegasdawg
- Start date
Not just college baseball
and its a good rule.
We are just as good as UCLA. The ball just bounced their way last night. They played excellent defense.
If Henderson gets that bunt down, things may have been different, but he didn't. No shame in losing a game like that.
and its a good rule.
We are just as good as UCLA. The ball just bounced their way last night. They played excellent defense.
If Henderson gets that bunt down, things may have been different, but he didn't. No shame in losing a game like that.
I've never understood the purpose of that rule
can someone more knowledgeable explain it to me? I can't think of why this rule might exist in the first place.
can someone more knowledgeable explain it to me? I can't think of why this rule might exist in the first place.
Someone has to be credited with a put out after every out recorded. If the catcher drops or misses the ball, then there is no one to credit with a put out. So the catcher must retrieve the ball and throw it to 1st base, so the 1st baseman will be credited with a put out.
So it's for the benefit of those filling out a score card?
As opposed to making sense in the game? I'm not complaining at all, it just seems silly. You swing and miss at a 3rd strike, the pitcher records a strike out, and then you go sit down.
As opposed to making sense in the game? I'm not complaining at all, it just seems silly. You swing and miss at a 3rd strike, the pitcher records a strike out, and then you go sit down.
So who gets the putout when the catcher drops the 3rd strike and 1st base is occupied with less than 2 outs then? Who gets the putout when an infield fly is called and no one catches the ball? Or when a baserunner runs out of the baseline? I'm fine with the rule. Those are just 3 questions that popped into my head immediately.
I do realize this is a rule in more than college baseball. This was jsut a case of me having college baseball on the mind and my hands adding in that word because of that while my mind had gone on to the rest of my thoughts.
No, but they do get to stay at 1st if the outfielder drops the fly ball or the first baseman drops the throw from the shortstop.
I know on an infield fly it is the scorekeepers judgement as to who would've made the catch (usually the closest fielder)
It is an archaic rule. Here is an answer from wiki answers that explains the reason. The defense needs to maintain control, just like when you tag a runner and you have to hold onto the ball.
[h=1]What is the purpose of the dropped third strike rule?[/h] In: Baseball Rules and Regulations [Edit categories]
Answer:
[h=2]The defense must control the ball[/h] It speaks to the necessity of the defending team to maintain control of a ball in play.
[h=2]One of the oldest rules in baseball[/h]
Actually, logic does have a lot to do with it. You have to complete the play in baseball. That's one of the oldest rules. The catcher has to control the ball, or it is in play. The fielders have to control the ball on the catch, or the ball is in play.
[h=2]19th Century rule[/h] The rule is one of the oldest in baseball, predating the "walk" or "base on balls." Before the existence of the walk, batters were not compelled to swing at pitchers as they are today. (In fact, there once was a time when batters could tell the pitcher to throw the ball high or low.) After the second strike, however, umpires could declare a subsequent pitch "good," which would compel the batter to swing at the next potentially good pitch. (In other words, he was given one warning!) After two strikes, if a batter "stuck at" a good pitch -- that is, if he swung at it and missed -- or if he failed to swing at a good pitch after having been warned, the batter was declared out. It was called a "hand out." If, however, the catcher failed to hold on to the ball, it was as if the batter put the ball in play. Oddly enough, "striking out" was as good as putting the ball in play if the catcher failed to hold on to the ball. The old rule books said as much. When I find a link to an archaic rule book, I'll post it. The logic was -- and still is -- that the defense must be in control of the ball when retiring a batter or base runner.
[h=1]What is the purpose of the dropped third strike rule?[/h] In: Baseball Rules and Regulations [Edit categories]
Answer:
[h=2]The defense must control the ball[/h] It speaks to the necessity of the defending team to maintain control of a ball in play.
[h=2]One of the oldest rules in baseball[/h]
Actually, logic does have a lot to do with it. You have to complete the play in baseball. That's one of the oldest rules. The catcher has to control the ball, or it is in play. The fielders have to control the ball on the catch, or the ball is in play.
[h=2]19th Century rule[/h] The rule is one of the oldest in baseball, predating the "walk" or "base on balls." Before the existence of the walk, batters were not compelled to swing at pitchers as they are today. (In fact, there once was a time when batters could tell the pitcher to throw the ball high or low.) After the second strike, however, umpires could declare a subsequent pitch "good," which would compel the batter to swing at the next potentially good pitch. (In other words, he was given one warning!) After two strikes, if a batter "stuck at" a good pitch -- that is, if he swung at it and missed -- or if he failed to swing at a good pitch after having been warned, the batter was declared out. It was called a "hand out." If, however, the catcher failed to hold on to the ball, it was as if the batter put the ball in play. Oddly enough, "striking out" was as good as putting the ball in play if the catcher failed to hold on to the ball. The old rule books said as much. When I find a link to an archaic rule book, I'll post it. The logic was -- and still is -- that the defense must be in control of the ball when retiring a batter or base runner.
I've always been on the fence about it. On one hand, the catcher does, technically, record the out. On the other, it rewards the batter who just offered at a pitch that was, more often than not, way out of the zone.
And, yes, the rule does exist in little league and girls fast pitch. Imagine trying to explain to a 10 year old girl that she is supposed to run when she strikes out. They have no clue what is going on.
And, yes, the rule does exist in little league and girls fast pitch. Imagine trying to explain to a 10 year old girl that she is supposed to run when she strikes out. They have no clue what is going on.
Ok, but who has control of a foul bunt, third strike? The nearest fielder, I guess. But still the point is, a fouled bunt is not under control and it is an out.
I can see the logic in controling the ball. However, why not just give the batter another opportunity. Like a swinging foul with two strikes? Just my thoughts.
I can see the logic in controling the ball. However, why not just give the batter another opportunity. Like a swinging foul with two strikes? Just my thoughts.
Reasoning: You have to catch the ball to be out. Cant throw a ball to 1st and miss it and bet the out...
Just feels weird bc it happens at the plate rather than in the field.
Just feels weird bc it happens at the plate rather than in the field.
10 year old girls play sports? I would think they should be in the kitchen learning how to cook.**
I don't like the rule either, but it's been around forever and it's in baseball at all levels, except maybe Little League (don't know about that). It's just one of those quirky things we know about and have to live with. Kinda like not tapping down spike marks in golf ... stupid, but it's a rule.
I would've been with Mutt on that subject up until a few years ago (tongue in cheek, of course). Now I have a 5 year old granddaughter who plays soccer and several other kiddy sports. So I can't say it any more. But I also have a 3-month old grand son who, even now, I can tell will be hell on wheels in sports. And of course, both are mental prodigies.
You claim its a good rule and then dont even say why.
Its a dumb rule, and here is why-
There is no need for it. The batter swung and missed. Batter is out.
There, simple as that.
If the ball gets away from the catcher, then just like every other pitch that isnt fouled off by the hitter, the ball is live and runners on base can try to advance. Same as if the third strike is caught by the catcher- baserunners can try to advance(if they want to, itd be odd) because its a live ball.
But the batter shouldnt have a chance to advance- his *** was out when he swung and missed.
The batter does not deserve to have a chance to get on base. They struck out.
Let me know why the batter deserves the chance to get on base, even after striking out.
The catcher can go get the ball, have it, and there, the out is recorded.
A batter just struck out. They shouldnt get yet another chance to get on base. They were out when that 3rd strike was called. Anyone on base though?...its a live ball and they should still have the chance to advance.
It adds excitement to the game. Not every rule has the make the game perfectly just. Baseball's variety is its trump card. "I always see something I never saw before," said the baseball fan after ten thousand games.
^^^Very good point
Invalidates the "someone always must control the out" theory.
Invalidates the "someone always must control the out" theory.
I believe it is a stupid rule that reflects values that have been long forgotten (i.e. must catch a ball to finish a play). Especially when you consider a breaking ball in the dirt can be a great out pitch. I would imagine that at one point, any ball in the dirt was considered a terrible pitch.
Related question: what's stopping a player with 2 strikes from swinging 1 or 2 seconds late, after he sees the pitch get by the catcher? In other words, intentionally striking out after he sees the pitch is wild in order to get first base.
Is there a time limit after which a player can't swing at a pitch?
Related question: what's stopping a player with 2 strikes from swinging 1 or 2 seconds late, after he sees the pitch get by the catcher? In other words, intentionally striking out after he sees the pitch is wild in order to get first base.
Is there a time limit after which a player can't swing at a pitch?
So who gets the put out on an infield fly rule when the ball is not caught? I realize the runners may advance but that us also true if the fielder catches it. There is no necessity for the ball to be in control for the batter runner to be out. The ball is not dead either becaus runners can advance. I think the confusion in light of the infield fly rule is why does the batter runner get to advance on a dropped 3rd strike if the ball doesn't have to be controlled in that case?
I do like the old days of baseball explanation from Bruce though. That tells us why the rule existed at one time. It just doesn't explain why it still does.
I do like the old days of baseball explanation from Bruce though. That tells us why the rule existed at one time. It just doesn't explain why it still does.
Speaking of breaking balls in the dirt ... I think that pitch last night that the guy struck out on, and then reached first base, was the one that bounced at least 3 feet in front of the plate. The batter really got fooled on that one, and then rewarded. And it set the tone for the early part of the game when they scored their 3.
The pitch was so awful, its shocking that he swung at it....
that pitch bounced two feet or more in front of the plate!
that pitch bounced two feet or more in front of the plate!
The rule also doesn't apply if there is a man on base. If the catcher drops strike three, but there is a runner on base, then the batter is out.
No control there by the defense.
No control there by the defense.
My son and I have discussed this rule many times before last night, and we agree with you that the rule is foolish. There is no rational basis for rewarding a batter for striking out on a wild pitch or pass ball.
I agree that it should be eliminated. I understand the historical charm and all, but there's just no need for silly quirky rules like that.
That's like saying a strike isn't a strike unless the catcher catches the ball.
The rule may be old, but it makes no sense. Three strikes should mean out.
Do you think maybe he was looking for the ball that had just ricocheted off his facemask?
Apples/Oranges. The infield fly rule is the exception, not the rule...
The infield fly rule exists to prevent intentional drops that leave the base runners in a vulnerable position on the base paths, and in exchange, the defense gets a "free" out.
This is completely different from swing and miss strike 3 dropped by the catcher. So, essentially, if the catcher cant catch strike 3, then IF the runner can get to 1st in time then the runner deserves it. I think its a completely fair rule to make the pitcher throw a "good enough" pitch on strike 3 that the catcher can catch, and the catcher should catch strike 3. If he cant, put him out at 1st.
I like the rule and Im a former pitcher.
The infield fly rule exists to prevent intentional drops that leave the base runners in a vulnerable position on the base paths, and in exchange, the defense gets a "free" out.
This is completely different from swing and miss strike 3 dropped by the catcher. So, essentially, if the catcher cant catch strike 3, then IF the runner can get to 1st in time then the runner deserves it. I think its a completely fair rule to make the pitcher throw a "good enough" pitch on strike 3 that the catcher can catch, and the catcher should catch strike 3. If he cant, put him out at 1st.
I like the rule and Im a former pitcher.
So what if the bases are loaded and there's one out... What's there to keep the catcher from intentionally dropping a swinging strike 3 and simply stepping on home plate, then throwing to first? Or runners on first and second and picking off the lead runner who doesn't have a chance in hell of making it to third base? Are those not free or easy outs?
If I were a catcher and the runner had to advance to first on a dropped third strike, I'd do that every time.
I like the rule too because I'm a traditionalist... Just defending the premise that it is related to the infield fly rule.
If I were a catcher and the runner had to advance to first on a dropped third strike, I'd do that every time.
I like the rule too because I'm a traditionalist... Just defending the premise that it is related to the infield fly rule.
Last edited: