Dropped Third Strike

[LEGACY]

My question is; On a dropped third strike the batter while in the batters box steps on the ball then begins to run.
The catcher throws to first but not in time. Is the batter out for touching the ball or because in the batters box stepping on the ball does not effect the play?

 

[Comp]

If the batter/runner interferes with the defenses ability to play on the dropped third strike ball, they are out. Does not matter if they are in the box or not.

 

[Umpireernie]

If the batter/runner interferes with the defense's ability to play on the dropped third strike ball, they are out. Does not matter if they are in the box or not.

Agreed. The question here is did the BR interfere? Merely being in contact with the ball after F2 fails to catch it is not interference. Did she do something to take away the defense's opportunity to make the play or did F2 just not make the throw in time? Have to see it of course but the picture I am getting is the BR stepping on the ball on the way out of the box and the ball simply remains there on the ground where it was stepped on. Nothing is preventing F2 from picking it up and making the play. So probably not interference.

On the other hand if BR steps on the ball and causes the ball to squirt away from F2 and thus take away the opportunity to make the play then interference would be in order. Dead ball, BR out, any other runners return.

 

[Umpire]

In this case, the interference would have to be pretty blatant (notice I didn't use the term "intentional"). That is because the person who caused the problem is the catcher, not the batter. You better be 100% that the batter absolutely interfered with an out before protecting a defensive player who can't catch a ball.

 

[coach james]

Along the same topic. Is a third strike drop considered "dropped" if the ball hits the plate prior to the mitt, while the batter is swinging even though the catcher secures the ball?

 

[CoogansBluff]

Along the same topic. Is a third strike drop considered "dropped" if the ball hits the plate prior to the mitt, while the batter is swinging even though the catcher secures the ball?

Yes, it is.

 

[eddieq]

Yeah, "dropped third strike" is a misnomer. It's more of an "uncaught third strike".

 

[BretMan]

Yeah, "dropped third strike" is a misnomer. It's more of an "uncaught third strike".

And, unfortunately, it is a misnomer that appears in the actual rule book in several spots. From a layman's standpoint, I guess that the two terms have become interchangable. If you mention one or the other somebody should know what you're talking about. As far as a strict definition of the rule and how it applies, uncaught third strike best fits.

The rule says that a batter is out when the third strike is caught. For it to be caught, the pitch needs to be airbourne, or in-flight, from the time it leaves the pitcher's hand to the point where it's contacted by the catcher. So if it hits the ground, the plate, the batter or the umpire before reaching the catcher, it is no longer in-flight and can longer be legally caught.

To retire the batter, the catch of a third strike needs to meet all of the same criteria as a catch of a batted fly ball. It needs to in-flight, it can't be caught with detached equipment, it must at some point be securely held in the hand or glove, etcetera, etcetera. If all those conditions aren't met, you don't have a catch and you don't have a caught third strike.

 

[eddieq]

Very True, Bret. Heck, the ASA rulebook index has "dropped third strike" listed but points to 8.1.B which says when the "catcher fails to catch" the third strike. PONY does the same thing, but in the rule it points to it actually states, "This is called the dropped third strike rule".

It's unfortunate for sure, that the rule sets make this double reference. I've had coaches argue (as I'm sure you have) that the catcher caught the ball and didn't drop it even though it bounced in the dirt before she got it in her glove.

 

[Umpireernie]

In this case, the interference would have to be pretty blatant (notice I didn't use the term "intentional"). That is because the person who caused the problem is the catcher, not the batter. You better be 100% that the batter absolutely interfered with an out before protecting a defensive player who can't catch a ball.

Agreed. But I would also say just because it's an U3K you don't give the batter any extra allowance to interfere. If the defense had an opportunity for an out and then the offense moves the ball and takes away that opportunity then you have INT.

I may be wrong but it sounds like you are saying in an U3K sitch we should apply a higher standard than this in making an INT call. Or maybe we are on the same page and it's all semantics! Good discussion anyway..