dropped third with a swing, 13u

[fishnfed]

Pitcher threw a curveball in the dirt; batter swung; catcher fielded it on one hop clean off the dirt; it was the third strike.  I say dropped third and batter needs to be made out.  Coach disagreed with me (alot).  What say the knowledge base?

[Larry in TN]

It is not a DROPPED third-strike, it is an UN-CAUGHT third-strike.  When you call it by its proper name it is easier to avoid confusion.

 

For the strike to be "CAUGHT" it must qualify under the definition of "A CATCH".  From OBR Rule 2.00 - DEFINITIONS:

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.
 

The key in the definition is "of a ball in flight".  Also from Rule 2.00:

 

IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

 

If the pitch is not caught in flight on strike three then the batter is NOT out unless first-base is occupied with less than two outs.

[noumpere]

Pitcher threw a curveball in the dirt; batter swung; catcher fielded it on one hop clean off the dirt; it was the third strike.  I say dropped third and batter needs to be made out.  Coach disagreed with me (alot).  What say the knowledge base?

I say that shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

[fishnfed]

Thanks fellows.  Always nice to confirm what I was thinking was correct.

[VAUmp]

Did you eject him?

[Rich Ives]

You don't need "catch" and "on flight" to answer this. Just look in 2.00 "Ball".  Yes -  it seems like a strange place to look.

 

Rule 2.00 (Ball) Comment: If the pitch touches the ground and bounces through the strike
zone it is a “ball.†If such a pitch touches the batter, he shall be awarded first base. If the batter swings
at such a pitch after two strikes, the ball cannot be caught, for the purposes of Rule 6.05 (c ) and 6.09 (b). If the batter hits such a pitch, the ensuing action shall be the same as if he hit the ball in flight.

 

 

And it's answered directly. No need to go through a long dissertation.

[basejester]

"Such a pitch" is one that touches the ground, I guess, instead of one of "touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone".  The language is a little sloppy, IMHO.

[Rich Ives]

"Such a pitch" is one that touches the ground, I guess, instead of one of "touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone".  The language is a little sloppy, IMHO.

 

Not really. If you are following conventional English constructs "such a pitch" clearly refers to a pitch that hits the ground. That's what the "and" does. Separates "touches the ground" from "bounces through . . "

[blue23ll]

"Such a pitch" is one that touches the ground, I guess, instead of one of "touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone".  The language is a little sloppy, IMHO.

 

 

 

"Such a pitch" is one that touches the ground, I guess, instead of one of "touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone".  The language is a little sloppy, IMHO.

 

Not really. If you are following conventional English constructs "such a pitch" clearly refers to a pitch that hits the ground. That's what the "and" does. Separates "touches the ground" from "bounces through . . "

 

Not really? Sounds like you both are saying the same thing to me. WOBW

[Rich Ives]

 

"Such a pitch" is one that touches the ground, I guess, instead of one of "touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone".  The language is a little sloppy, IMHO.

 

 

 

"Such a pitch" is one that touches the ground, I guess, instead of one of "touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone".  The language is a little sloppy, IMHO.

 

Not really. If you are following conventional English constructs "such a pitch" clearly refers to a pitch that hits the ground. That's what the "and" does. Separates "touches the ground" from "bounces through . . "

 

Not really? Sounds like you both are saying the same thing to me. WOBW

 

 

He's saying that the language is sloppy and thus the exception could be read to mean that the "cannot be caught" only applies to a bounced pitch that enters the strike zone.   I say not true re the potential read.

[basejester]

Not really. If you are following conventional English constructs "such a pitch" clearly refers to a pitch that hits the ground. That's what the "and" does. Separates "touches the ground" from "bounces through . . "

I think we're using context to overcome the ambiguity.  The only way I can think to bring this (academic) discussion above bald assertions is to find some other examples.

 

Rule 5.09(g) Comment: If a foul tip hits the umpire and is caught by a fielder on the rebound, the

ball is “dead†and the batsman cannot be called out. The same shall apply where such foul tip lodges in

the umpire’s mask or other paraphernalia.

If a third strike (not a foul tip) passes the catcher and hits an umpire, the ball is in play. If such ball

rebounds and is caught by a fielder before it touches the ground, the batsman is not out on such a catch,

but the ball remains in play and the batsman may be retired at first base, or touched with the ball for the

out.

I think from the context, it's clear that "such ball" refers to not only a third strike that passes the catcher but specifically to one that passes the catcher and strikes the umpire.  It's not such a great example, because there's not really anything else (that I can think of) that the ball could rebound off of and be a catch.

[Rich Ives]

 

Not really. If you are following conventional English constructs "such a pitch" clearly refers to a pitch that hits the ground. That's what the "and" does. Separates "touches the ground" from "bounces through . . "

I think we're using context to overcome the ambiguity.  The only way I can think to bring this (academic) discussion above bald assertions is to find some other examples.

 

 

Rule 5.09(g) Comment: If a foul tip hits the umpire and is caught by a fielder on the rebound, the

ball is “dead†and the batsman cannot be called out. The same shall apply where such foul tip lodges in

the umpire’s mask or other paraphernalia.

If a third strike (not a foul tip) passes the catcher and hits an umpire, the ball is in play. If such ball

rebounds and is caught by a fielder before it touches the ground, the batsman is not out on such a catch,

but the ball remains in play and the batsman may be retired at first base, or touched with the ball for the

out.

I think from the context, it's clear that "such ball" refers to not only a third strike that passes the catcher but specifically to one that passes the catcher and strikes the umpire.  It's not such a great example, because there's not really anything else (that I can think of) that the ball could rebound off of and be a catch.

 

 

I guess we had different English teachers.