Third strike not caught rule

[carolinablue]

I had this conversation with a fellow umpire earlier this season and thought I'd put it on here and see what you guys think. Every rule in baseball, when you think about it has some logical purpose wether it's to keep someone from getting a cheap out or safety or what ever, when you look at it you can see why there is a need for the rule. The only rule that to me doesn't make sense is the third strike not caught rule. My associate, when asked, said he thought that it was because that every out in baseball is either a result of a force, a tag, or a catch. When a catcher doesn't catch a third strike then none of these critera ( so to speak ) are met, so the batter cannot be out. The play must continue until he is forced or tagged at that point. What do you guys think, is there another reason for the rule ? Was it just put in to make the game more interesting ? I was just wondering.

[bobjenkins]

I had this conversation with a fellow umpire earlier this season and thought I'd put it on here and see what you guys think. Every rule in baseball, when you think about it has some logical purpose wether it's to keep someone from getting a cheap out or safety or what ever, when you look at it you can see why there is a need for the rule. The only rule that to me doesn't make sense is the third strike not caught rule. My associate, when asked, said he thought that it was because that every out in baseball is either a result of a force, a tag, or a catch. When a catcher doesn't catch a third strike then none of these critera ( so to speak ) are met, so the batter cannot be out. The play must continue until he is forced or tagged at that point. What do you guys think, is there another reason for the rule ? Was it just put in to make the game more interesting ? I was just wondering.

Your friend is close. When baseball first started, the BR could run on every third strike* With F2 playing well behind the batter, and the poor condition of the balls, this was no sure out.

As time passed and the game evolved, catchers nearly always caught the ball. So, the rule was changed so a batter was not out only if the ball was not caught*. Smart cathcers realized that, with R1, they could get a "cheap" double play by not catching the pitch. (Similar to the "intentioanlly dropped fly ball in the infield rule), so the rule was again changed to make the batter out if first was occupied and there were less than tow out.

* -- I'm not sure if these statements are correct. In the original rules, the batter may have been out if the pitch was caught (almost never) or fielded on one bounce (frequent, but no sure thing). IF that's true, then the first "change" listed wouldn't really be a change.

[carolinablue]

That's very interesting. I wonder why they originally allowed the batter to run on all third strikes ? Seems like that would defeat the purpose of a strike out.

[DelawareBlue]

In the early days of the game, catchers wore no protective equipment and stood some distance behind the batter. If I recall correctly, under the early rules of baseball a batter who swung at and missed a third strike or failed to swing at a called third strike was obligated to run to first base just as if he had hit a fair ball.

It wasn't until around 1950 that the rule was changed to cover only third strikes not caught by the catcher. A provision was also added not allowing the batter to attempt to advance if first base was occupied with less than two outs. This was to prevent a catcher from intentionally dropping a third strike in order to get a cheap double.

[Brotherhood_of_Blue]

Here is the context of the rule, including the Historical background surrounding it as paraphrased from the JEA Annotated Reference

6.09(b) The batter becomes a runner when 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.
Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: When a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by
the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first
base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base.
Historical Notes: Under the original Major League Code (1876), a batsman who struck at and missed a third strike OR failed to strike at a good ball for the called third strike was obligated to run to first base "... as in the case of hitting a fair ball."
The Rules of 1887 specified that the batsman became a base runner "... instantly after four strikes have been
declared by the umpire." This four strike provision lasted only one year.
As late as the 1940's, the batter was entitled to advance (with liability) after three strikes had been called by the umpire. By the time of the recodification in 1950, a provision had been added that stipulated that the batter could advance (with liability) after three strikes had been called when the third strike was not caught unless there is a runner on first base with not more than one out. This changed the previous rule in two ways: (1) The batter could legally advance as a runner only
if the third strike was NOT caught; and (2) The batter was not permitted to advance if first base was occupied with less than two outs.

Tom

[bobjenkins]

That's very interesting. I wonder why they originally allowed the batter to run on all third strikes ? Seems like that would defeat the purpose of a strike out.

"Strike outs" were rare in the original (ca. 1850s) baseball. Pitches were underhand, the batter could request a "high" or a "low" pitch, and strikes were "called" only on a missed swing.

You still see remnants of this in today's FED rule "The batter becomes a runner when he has three-strikes. If the thrid strike is caught, the BR is out almost immediately."

[_bobby_]

err - pitch.

make mine a slow ball down the middle waist high.

could you also tell your centerfielder to move to the right a tadge - i want to hit it there where he is now standing - thanks.

:)