What are you, 15 years old? We are having a congenial discussion, and I am trying to summarize your position over a complex thread. This is not the pit.
Maybe in some league, but not in MLB according to the rules as written.
Read the rule. It only applies in a certain out/strike situation, not all.
Read the rule.
That is your refutation? That the rules have a typo and everyone knows it but didn’t bother to fix it?
It is perfectly clear. Leaving out “-runner” would be a major error after 140 years or so.
And even if it is in error, we play as the rules are, then change the rules in the winter.
Based on what rule? You still haven’t provided any evidence the run wouldn’t score. A plain text reading of the rulebook provides no entry that says this run would not score; 4.09 doesn’t apply because the batter is not a batter-runner.
Please show us the entry in the rulebook that establishes your claim.
With two outs, and two strikes, when the batter strikes out, the action of any runner is not a time play. When the batter strikes out to end the inning, it is no different than if he popped out to end the inning. Action of the runners is meaningless.
Interpreting any of the above to believe a runner can score when the batter strikes out for the third out is absurd.
What rule says that? The rule that states a runner cannot score on a pop out specifically refers ONLY to batter-runners. In the scenario we are discussing there’s no batter-runner.
You’ve cited three rules and not one of them addresses the scenario or supports your position. Your citings of 4.09 and 6.04 are irrelevant because in the scenario we has posited, the third out does not occur until after the runner has scored. Your citing of the definition of a batter-runner clearly not does include a batter taking a third strike (unless it’s a dropped third strike, which, again, we are not discussing) and so it works AGAINST your claim, not for it.
I’ll be happy to believe you when you find a rule that supports your claim. Please donh’t come back with telling us not to get hung up on the difference between a batter and a batter-runner; that’s one of the most important distinctions in the rulebook.
But that’s the critical difference between our positions. In the early days of baseball, if a batter took strike three, the defense had to tag him or throw him out at first (even if caught cleanly.) The batter was required to attempt to reach first base on a strikeout, because batters didn’t just strike out and walk back to the bench. Their at bat ended with them being a batter-runner. The rule has never been changed to specify “batter & batter-runner.” It should be reworded, because some people apparenlty can’t understand a dead ball, end of inning when they see it.
You said you sent this to MLB. Wait for their answer.
That has never been true in the entire history of organized baseball as we know it.
The very first written rule on strikeouts known to exist, as written by Alexander Cartwright himself, states that a third strike caught by the catcher is an out. No tag or force needed. Here are the original rules of baseball.
This is an interesting question. There are of course three ways to answer it:
What does the most narrow, technical, reading of the current rules say?
What would be most consistent with the rest of the rules of the game, and create fewest possible loopholes or undesirable situations, if a new rule for that situation was being written from scratch? Obviously, some value judgments may come into play here as to what situations are undesirable, but there’s also room for consensus on a lot of things for how the play should be ruled.
How would a real umpire call it in an actual MLB game (Or, for that matter, any other league)?
[In the world of actual law, a judge would primarily go with #1, but also consider #2]
For #3, I’m wondering if any real umpires care to chime in on how they’d rule it (again maybe not in MLB, but gives some insight).
Now, if we’re looking at #2, if the run is allowed to score, there’s a bit of a conflict, because if the catcher drops the third strike and throws out the batter-runner at first, the run no longer counts. Most other baseball rules (e.g. infield fly) are structured so as to avoid incentives for the fielding team to intentionally misplay a ball. Therefore it seems consistent with that spirit to me to not allow the run to score in this case.
But not allowing the run to score wouldn’t be consistent with the way that situation is handled in other cases; in other cases (the infield fly rule and intentional drop rule) the offensive team isn’t penalized for deliberate misplay by the defensive team. In both those cases the rule is designed to impose an outcome that would be consistent with the defensive team NOT misplaying the ball intentionally. A correspondingly specific rule - and I think we must agree the rulebook simply does not have a rule for this - would be to say “If, in the umpire’s judgment, the catcher deliberately drops a third strike that creates a force out that would prevent a run from scoring, the umpire shall declare the play dead, the batter out, and allow the run to score.” That would be a near-perfect mirror of the intentional drop rule (Rule 6.05(l)) Going against a plain text reading of the rulebook would be penalizing the offensive team for the catcher deliberately dropping the third strike, which is clearly not the intent of 6.05(l) or the infield fly rule.
To my mind… well, imagine this. Runner on third isn’t very fast so the pitcher, unwisely, decides to pitch from the windup. As he is taking the signs, the runner breaks and gets an enormous jump. It’s obvious the pitcher has not got a hope in hell in getting the ball there in time so rather than rushing his pitch, he doesn’t do anything, and the runner slides across safely. The pitcher never steps off the rubber. He winds up, pitches, and gets strike three. Doesn’t it seem a bit silly for that run not to count?
I’ve sent the question in to the World Umpires Association as well.
It does seem a bit silly, but the one time I’ve seen a remotely analogous play in MLB (see my post#96), the ruling was that a base reached while the pitcher was in the set position hadn’t really been reached.
But in that case the result of the play was a foul ball, which is pretty much a no-exceptions-go-back rule. Munch, I would agree the runner much return to third on a foul ball. Rule 5.09(e) doesn’t really allow for any other result.
I mean, you have to admit we’re positing a very weird play. Still, if I don’t hear back from an authority, it’ll probably come up the next time I ump a game. It always works that way; you think something can’t possibly happen, and then, sure as hell, it does.
I depends what you call organized baseball. I’m not talking about anything under the umbrella of the National Association, which is ‘organized baseball’ as we know it. What you say about the Knickerbocker rules is correct. Nice link, btw. I’m the one who edited that page before it went live. As you stated, the Knickerbockers are the first rules known to exist. They are not, however, the first rules known to have existed. The New York Gothams had rules, and various organizations had their own rules or practices to how the games were played. The Knickerbockers merely wrote down how they were playing.
I looked over the rules history, and I admit I may be wrong on this. I may be thinking of the days in which batters were retired when their batted ball was caught on the fly or on one bounce, but the batter was out on a third strike only when the ball was caught (if the third strike was caught on one bounce, the batter had to be tagged or thrown out at first, like today.)
Nonetheless, I sent this to one of the foremost baseball historians, and he agreed with my recollection of this early strikeout rule. He referred me to another, and I am awaiting his reply.
Regardless, this doesn’t really help us with the original question. Let’s look again at rule 6.05:
Clearly the call of the pitched ball takes precedent over the action of a baserunner in motion.
We surely all agree on the following:
Less than 2 outs, runner stealing home on pitch, ball hits runner in strike zone. This is a strike to the batter, so he has struckout. The run scores.
Less than 2 outs, runner stealing home on pitch, catcher catches strike three. The batter has struckout. The run scores. Rule 6.05 tells us so.
Now consider when there are 2 outs:
2 outs, runner stealing home on pitch, ball hits runner in strike zone. This is a strike to the batter, so he has struckout. The run does not score. Rule 6.05 tells us so.
2 outs, runner stealing home on pitch, catcher catches strike three. The batter has struckout. I say the run does not score. Some of you say the run does score.
My question – In #3, why doesn’t the run score? It isn’t due to the runner causing interference with the pitch. The rulebook tells you the call is ‘strike three.’ It doesn’t say it’s interference. If it were interference, then he would also be out when hit by the ball in the strike zone with less than two outs. He is out, because the pitched ball takes precedent over the action of the runner. The pitch is strike three. The inning is over.
Regardless, this doesn’t really help us with the original question. Let’s look again at rule 6.05:
Clearly the call of the pitched ball takes precedent over the action of a baserunner in motion.
We surely all agree on the following:
Less than 2 outs, runner stealing home on pitch, ball hits runner in strike zone. This is a strike to the batter, so he has struckout. The run scores.
Less than 2 outs, runner stealing home on pitch, catcher catches strike three. The batter has struckout. The run scores. Rule 6.05 tells us so.
Rule 6.05 only discusses when the runner is hit by the pitch in the strikezone, so #2 is not addressed by the rule at all.
Yes.
That is the dispute, yes.
Good question. My initial feeling is it is because the pitcher is obligated to offer a pitch to the batter and the team at bat has prevented that from happening. I am not sure why there is a difference between the number of outs.
Is there a rule otherwise on what happens if a pitch is prevented? by the team at bat (not that there is much they can do short of hitting him with a ball from the dugout or something equally bizarre, but still a rule might address the general situation).
I think the reasoning may be that, with a runner on third and two outs, a team with brave (or suitably padded) players would always break for the plate, they would have nothing to lose by being hit - they are either safe when hit or they score conventionally. But if their aim is to be hit, that could be a high scoring strategy.
I think the reason the ball is dead when the runner is hit is because it could ricochet and hit the batter, and otherwise he would be entitled to first.
There is a huge gap in this rule btw.
Note that runs can score without evidence that the runner touches the plate - he need only be hit by the ball in the strike zone.
With an inconsistency like that, surely the batter vs. batter-runner matter is minor.
Bad wording in my last paragraph. Next to last sentence – instead of “He is out,” it should read, “He does not score.” The runner isn’t the one who is called out; the batter is called out on the third strike (which is why, with 2 outs, the runner can’t score.)
The proximate answer is “because Rule 6.05 says so.”
If you want to know why it says that, it’s because the runner got in the way of the ball. No, it doesn’t call it “interference,” because this is a special case; the runner is preventing a legal pitch from crossing the plate so there has to be a specific rule to deal with this. Here’s the thing; if the intention of the rulebook is to treat this situation as being that the run cannot score on a third strike, why would they bother to specify that the run doesn’t score if the runner is touched by a pitch? Why say that one nullifies the run and just leave the other for you to assume the run doesn’t count?
Plain text reading, the run scores. Unless there’s a precedent or authority to refer to, I gotta stick with that.
If you are proposing to be some sort of professional opinion in the matter you might have wanted to make that known some time ago. Are you on the Rules Committee?
Oh, but it isn’t. Keep in mind, the runner does not score because the pitch is in the strike zone of the batter. It’s not because he prevented a pitch from crossing the plate; it’s because the pitch is strike three.
If the runner is struck by the pitch, and the pitch is outside the strike zone, the pitch is a ball, and the runner scores. The key here is the ball being in the strike zone and the batter making the third out without he and all runners advancing at least one base, which ends the inning and any advance is negated.
I am not on the Rules Committee, but I am occasionally contacted by members of MLB and front offices regarding historical information. I doubt anyone on the Rules Committee will ask me my opinion on the rules, but if you send this to various authorities, it might trickle down to me for an opinion.
Regarding the old strikeout rule I mentioned earlier, the other historian just send me the following:
“The only example that immediately comes to mind is Gutsmuths’ description of English baseball from 1796. He specified that if the batter failed to strike the ball on his third attempt that he nonetheless was obliged to run toward the first base. However, Gutsmuths made no mention of a catcher, so it is not clear whose responsibility it was to retrieve the ball and attempt to retire the runner.”
He was going from memory, but he said when he got home, he check some sources.
In the earliest days of baseball (1796 accounted for in this thread so far), there was an explicit distinction between batter and batter-runner?
I am guessing that came in much later to clarify matters . Even if that was “much” later, there has still been more than ample time for any intended discrepancies to have been corrected. When was the lst time that definition changed, or the last time there was a clarification in one of the actual rules (such as but not only 4.09)?
Okay, I decided I’ll give you another chance. I’ll address your recent questions and statements.
No, but I used to be.
But the pitch wasn’t prevented. The pitch hit the runner in the strike zone, which makes it a strike. How can the pitch have been prevented if the pitch is called a strike? If the ball hits the runner outside of the strike zone, it is a ball (and the runner scores.)
A pitch does not have to pass entirely through the strike zone. It merely has to nick any part of the zone. Examples:
Pitch is high at the front of the strike zone, but drops enough to catch the back end of the zone.
Pitch is low but just catches the low part of the front of the strike zone. Catcher catches it low out of the zone, but it’s still a strike.
Breaking ball just catches the outside corner and breaks out of the zone. Catcher catches it well out of the strike zone, but it’s still a strike.
When a runner slides in, the pitch must be called. If the ball hits the runner in the strike zone, it is a strike. If the ball hits the runner out of the strike zone, it is a ball. It doesn’t matter that the pitch didn’t pass entirely through the zone to the catcher. All it has to do is hit part of the strike zone, and if it hits the runner in the strike zone, then it’s a strike.
Keep in mind 6.05 isn’t just when there are two outs. We’ve been going back and forth on 2-outs/less than 2 outs. Another critical element is that there are two outs and two strikes. If the count is one ball and one strike, the ball may hit the runner in the strike zone. The pitch is called a strike, and the run scores. But with two outs and two strikes, and the pitch hits the runner in the strike zone, it is strike three, which negates the run.
Okay, try this – runners on 2nd & 3rd. Count is 1 ball & 1 strike to the batter. Runner tries stealing home. Ball hits him in the strike zone. This is strike two to the batter. The run scores (provided the runner touched the plate.) Ball is dead. Runner from 2nd is now on 3rd. Next pitch, runner on third tries to steal home. Ball hits him in the strike zone. This is strike three. The run does not score. The runner is not out. The batter is out for striking out. That’s why the run doesn’t score.
What possible explanation can anyone offer for a runner scoring on a 2-out, 1 strike pitch when hit by the ball in the strike zone, but a runner trying the same thing when the count is 2-out and 2 strikes does not score? Note neither runner is cited for interference. If the runner interfered, the runner would be out, and the same batter would lead off the next inning. The batter (Jones) is out. He failed to reach first base. The inning is over, and no runs can score. The next inning, the batter who follows Jones will lead off.
Also keep in mind that it doesn’t matter that the player himself is in the strike zone. The pitch has to be in the strike zone. If the batter’s legs are in the strike zone, and the pitch is headed toward the right-handed batters’ box, the pitch is called a ball. The run scores, regardless of the outs & strike count. It is no different than a batter being hit by a pitched ball in the strike zone. If the batter crouches over the plate, and the ball hits his elbow in the strike zone, it is a strike.
When a pitched ball hits a runner, the ball is dead. If the ball also hits the batter, it is not a hitbatsman, because the ball is dead the instant the ball hit the runner. If 2 outs, 2 strikes, and pitch was in the strike zone, the batter has struck out, and the inning ends with no run scoring.
No. The runner still must touch the plate (unless there are 2-outs & 2-strikes, in which case the batter strikes out to end the inning.) Not really different than a batter running to first, and the shortstop’s throw bounces off the batter’s helmet & goes into the stands. The batter is entitled to two bases, but he still must touch the bases.
Yes, I included that to show the inconsistency of your thinking. I’m am showing you the importance of the third strike ending the inning. Look over the four examples and see the correlation.
This would be a very low-percentage play, since few players are fast enough to make this a useful strategy. Nobody wants to throw away an out at the plate like this.