Dropped 3rd strike
- Thread starter Admin_DD
- Start date
freddieball
Member
If there is a runner on first prior to the pitch and the base is occupied then the batter is out, unless it is the 3rd out. 0-1 out and a base is occupied batter is out. I believe even if the runner attempts to steal the base is still considered occupied. On the third out all runners can advance including the batter attempt to first. Bases loaded the catcher just needs to touch the home plate.
mogsoftball
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
doesnt matter if they are trying to steal, its if 1st is occupied at the time of the pitch then batter cant advance..
BretMan2
TSZ/OFC Umpire in Chief
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 43
Maybe a better question is, "Why do we have this crazy rule?". 
The genesis of the rule is akin to the same reason we have the infield fly rule: To prevent the defense from exploiting a loophole in the rules to gain an unintended advantage. The uncaught third strike rule dates back to the earliest days of baseball. It survives today to confuse and confound coaches, players, parents, and, unfortunately, even some umpires.
Everybody knows three strikes and you're out. But what the rule actually says is that the batter is out when the third strike is caught. "Caught" in this case means that the ball is airborne, or in-flight, from the point of the pitcher's release to the catcher catching it. If the ball hits the ground, the batter, the umpire, or anything else besides a defensive player, it's no longer in-flight.
The rules also state that when the third strike is not caught the batter becomes a batter-runner, same as if the ball was batted into play, and the batter-runner may advance to first base. Only sometimes...they can't! Here's why we have the exception in the rules for when they can't.
In baseball's early days this exception wasn't in place. The batter could always run if the third strike wasn't caught. Catchers soon found a way to exploit that rule. If at least first base was occupied (ie: there were force outs to be had on the bases), a crafty catcher would let the ball hit the mitt then purposely drop it. Now the batter had to run. Since runners on base would stay close to their base on a normal strike pitch, all the catcher had to do was pick up the ball, throw to second or third (wherever you had force outs) and the defense could easily turn two or three easy outs on a play that should really just be one out.
Somewhere around the turn of the century, the rulesmakers decided to close that loophole. So they added the exceptions for when a batter doesn't become a runner.
With 0 or 1 out and first base occupied (at the time of the pitch) the batter may not run. Since the batter doesn't become a batter-runner, there are no force outs to be had. This removes the defense's ability to get multiple outs and that removes the incentive for the catcher to purposely drop the ball. In that way, this rule serves the same purpose as the infield fly rule.
With 2 outs, the defense only needs one out to finish the inning. Purposely dropping the third strike with 2 outs would be...stupid. It offers no advantage and, in fact, would disadvantage the defense! So, when there are 2 outs, the rules still require the defense to complete the play, either by catching the pitch or making a throw and tag at a base.
The genesis of the rule is akin to the same reason we have the infield fly rule: To prevent the defense from exploiting a loophole in the rules to gain an unintended advantage. The uncaught third strike rule dates back to the earliest days of baseball. It survives today to confuse and confound coaches, players, parents, and, unfortunately, even some umpires.
Everybody knows three strikes and you're out. But what the rule actually says is that the batter is out when the third strike is caught. "Caught" in this case means that the ball is airborne, or in-flight, from the point of the pitcher's release to the catcher catching it. If the ball hits the ground, the batter, the umpire, or anything else besides a defensive player, it's no longer in-flight.
The rules also state that when the third strike is not caught the batter becomes a batter-runner, same as if the ball was batted into play, and the batter-runner may advance to first base. Only sometimes...they can't! Here's why we have the exception in the rules for when they can't.
In baseball's early days this exception wasn't in place. The batter could always run if the third strike wasn't caught. Catchers soon found a way to exploit that rule. If at least first base was occupied (ie: there were force outs to be had on the bases), a crafty catcher would let the ball hit the mitt then purposely drop it. Now the batter had to run. Since runners on base would stay close to their base on a normal strike pitch, all the catcher had to do was pick up the ball, throw to second or third (wherever you had force outs) and the defense could easily turn two or three easy outs on a play that should really just be one out.
Somewhere around the turn of the century, the rulesmakers decided to close that loophole. So they added the exceptions for when a batter doesn't become a runner.
With 0 or 1 out and first base occupied (at the time of the pitch) the batter may not run. Since the batter doesn't become a batter-runner, there are no force outs to be had. This removes the defense's ability to get multiple outs and that removes the incentive for the catcher to purposely drop the ball. In that way, this rule serves the same purpose as the infield fly rule.
With 2 outs, the defense only needs one out to finish the inning. Purposely dropping the third strike with 2 outs would be...stupid. It offers no advantage and, in fact, would disadvantage the defense! So, when there are 2 outs, the rules still require the defense to complete the play, either by catching the pitch or making a throw and tag at a base.
Last edited:
wow
Active Member
At a tournament and the above scenario happens. Less than two outs and the catcher drops strike three. The batter runs to first and the base runner at 1 goes to 2. The Ump calls the runner back and the opposing coach has a fit. The coach stated that because there was no runner at the time of the drop third, first base was not occupied. The ump lets this go on for about 5 min. He then proceeds to tell the coach the runner at 1 is out for leaving early and awards the batter 1st base. I guess the who " at the time of the pitch" was just too much to grasp.
Not sure if this was to end the debate or what but I thought it was a good lesson for the other team on.. Can tell you how many times I see this argued and called wrong!
Not sure if this was to end the debate or what but I thought it was a good lesson for the other team on.. Can tell you how many times I see this argued and called wrong!
BretMan2
TSZ/OFC Umpire in Chief
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 43
It stinks that tournaments charge cash to file a protest. This is a perfect example of a time when a coach should be able to avail himself of the one method in the rule book that gets a rule misinterpretation corrected.
frenchy101010
Member
Runner at first. 2 outs. Dropped 3rd strike. Runner on first runs to 2nd, batter runs to 1st, C throws to 2nd. Is this a force or tag at 2nd?
Yes it is a force. The runner on 1st lost the rights to 1st base and it became a force play at 2nd when the batter became a batter/runner.
coachjwb
Well-Known Member
Wow ... I love that story! If the runner wasn't on base at the time of the pitch, then she must have left early. It's just too bad they didn't throw down and get the batter anyhow, because then it would have been a double play!
Louuuuu
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 559
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 18
I hope this is hypothetical... Unless the runner on first can be timed with an hourglass, why would the catcher throw to 2nd instead of 1st?
First2Third
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2014
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
Perhaps the runner was going with the pitch and the catcher lost track of how many strikes or outs there were.
frenchy101010
Member
This ^^^^^
FastBat
Well-Known Member
Yes, but I think some coaches teach kids to run regardless of the catcher dropping the ball or not because it is interpreted as "lazy" if the batter-runner doesn't run. I really feel they aren't necessarily running to confuse the other team's defense, although it very well could/does. I have never seen it called as interference and some catchers will look at the ump confused and ask.
Similar threads
