hey, baseball gurus....

[TUSK]

Why is the catcher required to throw out an opposing batter on a dropped 3rd strike?

Is there a (logical) reason or is it just a goofy rule?

[RocketDawg]

I don't know, but it's been that way for as long as I've played baseball, and that's a long time. I guess it's just another goofy rule.

[chef dixon]

I'm not really sure, but I think it has to do with the concept of the catcher completing the "put out." Like a base hit, if the ball hits the ground it kind of disrupts that.

[Engine]

Gotta complete the out.

[msstate7]

Not a guru, but pretty sure catcher is credited with putout on a strike out. If strike 3 isn't caught by catcher and first base is open, then there wasn't a put out by the catcher. I think anyway...

[Dawgowar]

Batter can advance on a passed ball. Not to be confused with passing a huge crap. That would be both inappropriate and messy.

[smootness]

No obvious logic behind it, but I wouldn't necessarily call it goofy. It's no more goofy than a foul ball being a strike except for the 3rd strike, a bunted 3rd strike being an out, or any number of rules.

[shoeless joe]

In order to record an out in baseball there had to be a caught ball...that's pretty much it.

Of course that changes on a foul bunt with 2 strikes but that's still the logic behind it.

[Skydawg1]

Of course that changes on a foul bunt with 2 strikes but that's still the logic behind it.The Founding Fathers of Baseball knew bunting would become a huge issue...so they put in a fail-safe.

[dawgoneyall]

Why is the catcher required to throw out an opposing batter on a dropped 3rd strike?

Is there a (logical) reason or is it just a goofy rule?

Same as why is an inflelder required to throw out a hit baseball (that hits the ground).

[Todd4State]

It is to complete the put out as other have said. I think it's a good rule because you don't there to be any confusion on whether a runner can advance or not on that type of play. I'm sure it's there for a reason.

[Dawgowar]

In other words, none of us are going to look it up.

[DownwardDawg]

In other words, none of us are going to look it up.

Hahaha!!!! That's what I got out of this thread.

[dawgoneyall]

It is to complete the put out as other have said. I think it's a good rule because you don't there to be any confusion on whether a runner can advance or not on that type of play. I'm sure it's there for a reason.

It's the ground thing.

[TUSK]

In other words, none of us are going to look it up.

yep, and TUSK still knows less than dick about baseball....

[Really Clark?]

It's a quirky rule for today's game but its origins actually had a purpose. I believe, it's first known existence is 1796 with a German book for games for physical education for children. There was a chapter of a game of the English Base-Ball. It had become poplar enough, although with various differences depending on where you played the game, that the writer published a set of rules. Many believe this is the first published rule regarding the dropped third strike. But in that version of the game the pitcher was actually much closer to a batter and the pitched had to have an arc. Because they did not have called balls and strikes, an inept pitcher or hitter could be up there all day. So a missed third strike required the batter to run and be put out. The actual catching and dropping aspect of the rule didn't come until later because all catchers stood back some distance because of no equipment. So nearly all pitches were bounced to the catcher any way. The adaptation of this rule with the differing versions of the game does change over the years. Including adjusting the wording to be similar to the infield fly rule. That's why if first base is occupied with less than 2 outs the dropped third strike doesn't matter. People were intentionally dropping the ball to try and turn a double play. Was actually a great play that was applauded but it was also a time of no or limited gear or mitts. With better gear and athletes the rule evolved.

[I seen it dawg]

That's baseball

[Dawgface]

I'm a golf fanatic and no sport has more goofy rules than that one. Of course golf is just a game.....not a sport. ;)

[RocketDawg]

I'm a golf fanatic and no sport has more goofy rules than that one. Of course golf is just a game.....not a sport. ;)

Me too ... well, not really a fanatic since I only play 5 days a week ... but yes, it has some goofy rules. Examples are not being allowed to tap down spike marks on the green and having to hit an otherwise perfectly good drive out of a divot in the fairway. But as long as everybody plays by the same rules it doesn't matter.

If golf is a game and not a sport, what is NASCAR? ** Somewhat related, but not NASCAR by any stretch, the Indy 500 comes on at 11 this morning.