Deja Vu - another swinging 3rd strike issue!

[Ksyrup]

Pads/DBacks game, almost the exact scenario as in last year's White Sox/Angels playoff game. Swinging third strike, this time it was even more clear that the catcher caught the ball. The catcher looked back at the ump while the runner took off for first, the ump gave the fist pump 3rd strike call, then gave the safe sign and/or pointed down to first for help while the catcher turned back around. Amazing.

In the catcher's defense, though, Adrian Gonzalez failed to cover first, so he couldn't thrown down if he wanted.

[PackerFanatic]

Alright...now I do recall this scenario happening in that playoff game and I remember being as baffled as I am reading this post. I will admit first hand I am not that avid of a baseball fan, but being a sports nut, I will watch it from time to time. What rule states that the runner can just run to first on a pitch he didn't hit that was (albeit late) called a third strike and an out? Just trying to clear this up in my head, because to me it just seems like the runner is trying to pull one over on everyone and actually succeeds (also succeeding in making everyone look really stupid in the process)

[SirFozzie]

Packer: If the ball was not caught cleanly (which the umpire said it hit the ground first) the batter can attempt to take first base (IF it is open, IE, no runner on it).. and the catcher has to throw to first to put out the runner.

[saldana]

did the umps have a powwow and decide that the home plate guy got it wrong, or did the runner get to stay on base?

[PackerFanatic]

IMHO, that is a pretty retarded rule...

[Vince]

IMHO, that is a pretty retarded rule...

True, but it allows for such great trivia questions as "How many strikeouts can a pitcher record in one inning?"

Even if the batter is eventually safe at first, the pitcher is credited with a strikeout, so the theoretical answer is "Infinitely many."

[Ragone]

here i was hoping this thread was about the old computer game..

[SackAttack]

Packer: If the ball was not caught cleanly (which the umpire said it hit the ground first) the batter can attempt to take first base (IF it is open, IE, no runner on it).. and the catcher has to throw to first to put out the runner.

Doesn't even have to hit the ground *first.*

Just has to hit the ground before the catcher gains control of it.

For what it's worth, there's actually a signal for a dropped third strike. The umpire doesn't signal anything with regards to strikes or outs. He just steps back, removes his mask, and holds his arms out perpindicular to his body.

That tells everybody on the field that it's strike three, but it was dropped. If you pump your first for the out, then start making other signals, you confuse the defense and risk losing control of the game.

Not to mention opening things up for one manager or the other to formally protest the game and cause all sorts of ruckus with the schedule as a result.

[MrBug708]

True, but it allows for such great trivia questions as "How many strikeouts can a pitcher record in one inning?"

Even if the batter is eventually safe at first, the pitcher is credited with a strikeout, so the theoretical answer is "Infinitely many."

I thought you couldnt with the bases loaded...?

[Vince]

I thought you couldnt with the bases loaded...?

Singles, stolen bases...first base can't be occupied, but that doesn't mean other stuff can't happen between each "strikeout."

[MrBug708]

True, I thought I one upped ya. :) No worries

[SackAttack]

Singles, stolen bases...first base can't be occupied, but that doesn't mean other stuff can't happen between each "strikeout."

The other problem is that since first base has to be unoccupied, there *has* to be other results in order for infinitely many to be true. If nothing else happens following a batter reaching on a dropped third strike to advance him, then it is impossible for infinitely many batters to strike out.

[Bad-example]

My understanding is that the batter can run on a dropped 3rd strike even if first base is occupied, provided there are 2 outs.

[Vince]

My understanding is that the batter can run on a dropped 3rd strike even if first base is occupied, provided there are 2 outs.
This is in fact correct (I had to look it up, though). A batter is out when_ ... (c) A third strike is not caught by the catcher when first base is occupied before two are out
Emphasis mine.

Another indication:

The batter becomes a runner when_ ... (b) 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

Again, emphasis mine.

[Ksyrup]

did the umps have a powwow and decide that the home plate guy got it wrong, or did the runner get to stay on base?

They pow-wowed but kept the call the same. It was almost the exact situation as last year - the ump gave a fist pump then a safe sign. The catcher looked back and saw the fist pump. It looked like he was still going to throw to first but the first baseman didn't cover. It was a bad call to begin with, but the ump's actions confused everybody. Sound familiar? I can't remember what came out of last year's situation, but I remember the ump finally conceding that he was going to revise his arm actions to make things more clear. This guy pretty much did last night what that guy did last year.

It ended up not mattering, because the next batter was called out on a somewhat dubious hitter's interference call on an attempted steal, which resulted in a double play and the end of the inning. Stellar inning for that home plate ump, I can tell ya that! :rolleyes:

[Ksyrup]

For what it's worth, there's actually a signal for a dropped third strike. The umpire doesn't signal anything with regards to strikes or outs. He just steps back, removes his mask, and holds his arms out perpindicular to his body.

That tells everybody on the field that it's strike three, but it was dropped. If you pump your first for the out, then start making other signals, you confuse the defense and risk losing control of the game.

That's exactly what happened last night. Fist pump, then safe sign. Not to mention, it was obvious that the catcher caught the ball in the first place.

[Toddzilla]

Not to mention opening things up for one manager or the other to formally protest the game and cause all sorts of ruckus with the schedule as a result.Formally protest? When was the last time that old gag resulted in anything?

[Ksyrup]

Formally protest? When was the last time that old gag resulted in anything?

1983.

[Maple Leafs]

here i was hoping this thread was about the old computer game..
Well, kid, you really stepped in it this time! Either you're bein' framed for a murder or you really iced the guy, but if I was you, I'd get outta town.