Millions,
Alright. I know the batter starts running because the ball is live in this situation, but why? This rule seems to be without purpose, at least to me, the fairly casual observer. Unlike the bunting with two strikes rule (presumably to stop batters from tiring out pitchers with ad naseum bunting), I see no reason that a dropped third strike should allow a batter to scurry towards first. And, seeing as how this rarely results in anything other than the batter being thrown out, why is this rule in the books? Was there a specific instance that it was borne from? Maybe I should just go back to basketball…
Well I got this explanation online.
Do they have to put out the batter? What if there are runners on first and second, forced to run by the scurrying batter, and the catcher for whatever reason finds it easier to throw to third?
The runners on 1st & 2nd, apparently, just sit there. A third strike is an automatic out with them on base. Of course, if it was a wild pitch (that was also a strike) they’d be able to run. I’m still a little iffy on the explanation, but Gangster Octopus’s source certainly helped.
The batter is out automatically on strike three if there are less than two outs and a runner on first.
The rule about catching the third strike is very, very, very, very old in baseball. It’s based on the theory that a fielder has to catch the ball to make an out. For a very long time, catching the third strike, especially on the fly, when the catcher was standing several feet behind the batter and not using a glove, was no mean feat.
If there are 2 outs, and first base is occupied, yes, the defense can put out any runner. I’ve seen 2 outs and bases loaded, after a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher just stepped on home plate for the out.
If there are less than 2 outs and first base is occupied, the batter is out on a dropped third strike. There is no need to tag him out.
By tradition (like so much in baseball), an out is not counted unless the ball is caught and the ball is cleanly taken out of the glove. Although extremely rare, I have seen cases where a fielder has caught a ball then dropped it will pulling it out of the glove. In these cases, there is no out and the ball is live. I suspect the third strike/dropped ball is a variation on this.
If you’re taking the ball out of your glove and you drop it, it’s supposed to be an out though.
If the feilder clearly is controlling the ball it’s a catch and an out regardless if he drops it later,
Nope.
Emphasis added
Clearly dropping the ball while taking it out of the glove nullifies the catch and I have seen this ruling made in a game.
I think we were thinking of different things. I was thinking of the part I bolded.
Or would have bolded if I put the tags in right…
But back to the original topic, a dropped thrid strike would not complete the out just like a dropped catch in the field does not complete the out.
The dropped third strike rule was in the original Knickerbocker Rules of 1845 (the Knickerbocker Club is supposed to have had the first written set of rules for baseball):
Three balls being struck at and missed and the last one caught, is a hand-out; if not caught is considered fair, and the striker bound to run.
In those days the catcher stood several feet behind the batter and typically caught the pitch after it bounced. Catching a third strike on the fly was sort of equivalent to catching a fly ball.
If you go back far enough baseball had no balls and strikes. The pitcher was expected to throw hittable pitches, and the batter was expected to swing at them. There was nothing to force a batter to swing at pitches he didn’t like. Also, a batter could swing and miss any number of times without being out. Eventually strikes were added to the game to force each at-bat to come to a conclusion (I suspect some batters were being very picky about which pitches they would swing at). The original idea of a strikeout was that, if the batter failed to put the ball in play after a certain number of swings, you would just treat it as if it were in play.
Called strikes (as opposed to swinging strikes) and balls (and bases-on-balls) were added later, again with the idea of forcing each at-bat to come to a conclusion.
Several here have noted that the batter is automatically out on a third strike when first base is occupied and there are fewer than two out. This is to prevent the catcher from getting an easy double play by allowing the ball to hit the ground. If the batter were allowed to try for first base in this situation, the runner already at first would have to go to second, creating a force play there. A quick-thinking catcher could throw to second for one out, and whoever was covering second could throw to first for the second out (assuming the batter-runner didn’t beat the throw).
Huh huh huh, you said “put out.”
And, for what it’s worth, it does sometimes happen that the catcher’s throw to first is not caught for one reason or another, and the batter is safe despite having gotten 3 strikes. In fact, I saw it happen in a Yankees game not too long ago.
I was going to mention this very thing. Well done! Grumble, grumble. In fact, the striker was even allowed to call whether he wanted a high pitch or a low pitch thrown.
But yes, to prevent the striker from standing around all day watching the pitcher tire himself out, they implemented rules like “hey, you coulda swang at that” (i.e., strikes). Balls and the third strike rule were probably a result of “hey, I’da swang at that if’n you’da gave me something good to hit.”
Schoolyard rules, basically, but written by lawyers.
In a similar case, I remember watching a Cubs game about 15 years back when a batter hit the ball into the outfield and the centerfielder (I believe) made a spectacular catch, but injured himself in the process. Another outfielder came over, took the ball out of the centerfielder’s mitt, and threw it into the infield. It was deemed a live ball, and not an out, because of the bolded part of your quote.
You must (a) not remember this correctly, (b) not be describing it correctly, or (c) it was called incorrectly. I’m assuming here you mean the center fielder caught the ball and the ball did not touch the ground, the wall, etc, but remained in his glove. Then either the catch was complete before the injury (judgement call of the ump) or the catch was complete when the second outfielder controlled the ball. The batter would be out in either case.
Now it is correct that the ball is live in the sense that it is still in play. It’s also true that any runners already on base could tag up and advance the moment the centerfileder first touched the ball so that the other fielder had to retrieve the ball and throw it in to stop the runners from advancing further.
Connected to the historical antecedents of such a rule is the fact that when a batter strikes out, it’s the catcher who is credited with the put-out. Dropping the third strike, then, is a way of negating that putout in much the same way that a first baseman could drop a throw and the runner would be safe.