Talk:Uncaught third strike/Archive 1

Is this the stupidest rule in baseball?

TimShell 17:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You must be an Angels fan 0:(

But I would like to hear a knowledgeable explanation on why this rules exists and how it philosophically fits into the game.

Before I try to explain why this rule IS needed, I am curious to see why you think it is NOT needed. I for one can not see how the game of baseball could fully funcion properly with out the dropped third strike rule! 172.133.149.20 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)nick22aku

From Hamp: It's not that the rule is not needed, however, it would appear to not be necessary if the stike out had already occurred. Once the batter swings, misses, and thereby creates his thrid strike, it would seem that at that instant an out has occurred, whether the Catcher catches the ball or not. I always thought that the logic of the "third strike rule" was that baseball wanted to control the ball and therefore a miss-caught third strike did not complete the play, however an argument against that is presented here: [1] So, the logic behind allowing the Batter to run to first base after his third swing (third strike) when the catcher does not catch that third strike is.........

I believe the reasoning is that an out cannot be recorded until a member of the defense has control of the ball. Fumblebruschi 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Some expert on 19th century baseball explained it to me once. The philosophy was that a batter got three chances to put the ball in play, and if he failed to do so, the ball was effectively in play at that point. If the catcher caught the pitch cleanly, he was out. If not, he had to be tagged or thrown out. It's sort of quaint and nostalgic, but I'm surprised that it has stayed in the rule book this long. Early on they had to modify the rule to prevent double play situations when first base was occupied. I guess that the problem is how to rewrite the rule book. "A batter who strikes out is out" sounds rather silly. (Seriously, I suppose that they'd have to eliminate one of those ways in which a batter becomes a runner.) WHPratt (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged with the strikeout article. Vidor 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV, also Roder Reference

It seems to me the use of the word "claimed" when referring to umpire Eddings' actions introduces a point of view that his claims are not credible. Absent any credible evidence that someone heard him call Pierzynski out, his explanation should stand without the pejorative reference to his "claim."

What is the proper way to cite someone's claim without judgment on the truth of such claim? The video of the incident shows two signals, which only makes sense if one is "strike" and the other "out". An umpire can "call a batter out" without using his voice. --PSzalapski 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, your most recent edit (21:15, 15 March 2007) expresses the situation without casting doubt on Eddings credibility. Justus R 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you changed it back anyway. I thought you liked it the other way. The fact in dispute is whether Eddings made one call or two; It is not in dispute that he said he made one call. I'll change it back; please discuss here if it isn't good. --PSzalapski 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Roder citation (in the main article) is helpful. However, I did not understand it to mean that the specific rule enforcement change under discussion had been considered before the 2005 ALCS incident. If there is a reference to establish that it had, then it would be appropriate to mention it.

Justus R 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct terminology and Neutral POV

Two things:

1. "Dropped third strike" is incorrect.

OBR Rule 6.05 reads "(b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher; Rule 6.05(b) Comment: “Legally caught” means in the catcher’s glove before the ball touches the ground. It is not legal if the ball lodges in his clothing or paraphernalia; or if it touches the umpire and is caught by the catcher on the rebound."

OBR Rule 6.09 "The batter becomes a runner when -- (a) He hits a fair ball; (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;"

Therefore, "dropped" is incorrect because "dropped" does not appear in the rules and because it does not fully describe the situations where the rules apply.

While I believe "uncaught" is the same as "not caught" it might be appropriate to rewrite the section to use "third strike called by the umpire is not caught"

The description that you put back in surrounding the Sox/Angels incident still strikes me as conveying a point of view, even if I did not see it at first. In addition, it seems more reasonable to rely on an umpire for first hand information than a couple of broadcasters. Broadcasters are notorious for not knowing the rules. Justus R 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole Angels anecdote should be de-emphasized and put into a longer historical perspective. I am going to try something, so see how it looks. Justus R 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate phrase

I don't think the phrase "dropped strike three" is inaccurate when everyone understands what it means. Yes, the words "dropped strike three" don't fully convey the actual rule, but that is not to say the phrase is inaccurate; instead, the phrase is well-understood and clear, just technically imprecise. It is similar to the term "ground-rule double"--everyone knows what it means, but the two-base award is a book rule, not a ground rule. The phrase is accurate, but the strict meaning of the phrase is not. ~~

An encyclopedia should be as accurate as possible. While a "dropped third strike" is an example of an "uncaught third strike," it does not accurately represent the entire set of "uncaught third strikes" any more than a "third strike passed ball" or a "third strike wild pitch" accurately represents the class of actions that are contemplated by the rule. In other words, it is inaccurate because it is not comprehensive. "Uncaught" is preferable because it is easily understood by the general reader while accurately and comprehensively describing the content of the rule. Justus R 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me--a baseball fan/player would likely read "dropped strike three" and mentally know that this includes a bouncing pitch. I am claiming it is accurate because usage determines meaning--the phrase "dropped strike three" is understood by people in baseball to include bouncing pitches. The strict definition of the word "dropped" would exclude this--this is a case where the strict definition of the words conflicts with the accepted definition of the phrase.

The article should remain "Uncaught third strike"; in the article, the phrase "dropped third strike" should not be called inaccurate--only misleading. --Locarno 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point that in context with baseball fans or players, most will know that "dropped third strike" is not an accurate characterization of the rule. But Wikipedia is not written expressly for baseball fans or players. It is written for people who do not necessarily know that in the context this phrase is often incorrectly used, "dropped" does not mean "dropped."

Looking at it another way, describing "dropped" as inaccurate conforms to the guidelines regarding Neutral Point of View. That is, that the article should avoid cultural bias which will likely be confusing to those unfamiliar with the intricacies of baseball rules. In other words, knowledgeable baseball fans will know that "dropped" is not accurate, but they will understand what is meant. But unless it is noted that the term is inaccurate or incorrect, those with less cultural knowledge (in this case, the culture of baseball) will not know. Justus R 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you have missed my point. "Dropped third strike" is what everybody calls it, which is what this article should explain.

Yes, which is why we should explain that although a dropped third strike may not be technically dropped, it still is often called a "dropped third strike" in baseball--you can't call it inaccurate when that is the common name for the term.

In baseball, the phrase "dropped third strike" is not incorrect or inaccurate, and I agree, we want to inform readers about it, because it is misleading and confusing. A phrase sometimes means something different than the sum of its words--this is the case here. I shall state it simply: In baseball, a "dropped third strike" doesn't have to be dropped to be called. We need to make it clear in the article that a dropped third strike needn't be dropped.

It is a misleading term, not an incorrect one. This is not an issue of NPOV or bias, so please do not quote these Wikipedia guidelines to me. Locarno

Put this another way: You say the phrase "dropped third strike" is an inaccurate term in Baseball because the uncaught third strike rule encompasses more than just dropped. However, your logic is flawed --just because the word "dropped" is inaccurate to define the rule, doesn't mean that the phrase "dropped third strike" is inaccurate as a name or euphemism for the rule. Locarno

First, I rearranged the text so that each entry is preserved as a unit. This is to preserve whatever flow there might be to the writing and to allow it to be read in its complete context. In addition, I don't think I missed your point. Let me rephrase it to see if I have it right:

Many (or most) people refer to this baseball play as a "dropped third strike" no matter if the uncaught third strike is dropped, bounces to the plate, bounces off the catcher or umpire, passes the catcher without being touched, etc. Since this usage is common, the definition of "dropped" becomes irrelevant and the phrase "dropped third strike" means precisely the same thing as "uncaught third strike." Consequently, the use of the phrase "dropped third strike" is accurate and correct in all instances of an "uncaught third strike" as well. However, this usage can be misleading or unclear since people who are not familiar with baseball rules might take the word "dropped" to have its ordinary meaning when used in this phrase. Therefore, the article should mention that the term "dropped third strike" can be misleading, but it should not refer to it as "inaccurate" or "incorrect."

Is this a correct restatement of your argument? I'm not being obtuse, if this is what you mean, then I understand it. But I do not agree with it, nor with the conclusions you draw regarding the best way to edit the article.

That's mostly right. I wouldn't say that "dropped" is perfectly accurate, but I think it is factually wrong (inconsistent with the way terms and phrases are used to describe meaning) to say that it is inaccurate.

It is not true that everybody calls it a dropped third strike. I would assure you that most umpires do not, and many coaches who emphasize teaching also do not. For instance, take a look at the link provided in the article to the Rick Roder's comments on the rules changes for 2006. It the references are all to "uncaught" third strikes.

I am an umpire, and I never call it a dropped third strike. However, every person I know who isn't rules-sensitive does. Obviously, such imprecise language has no place in rulebooks or authoritative rules interpreter's articles/books, such as Jaksa/Roder. Locarno

Here is an example I believe is somewhat analogous. In the 1950 movie "Sunset Blvd." Norma Desmond tells Joe that she's bought a "revolver." Later in the movie, we see the gun to which she referred and it is not a revolver at all, but a semi-automatic pistol. So Norma used an incorrect and inaccurate term (revolver-a pistol having a revolving cylinder with several cartridge chambers that may be fired in succession) to refer to the pistol (a gun designed to be held and fired with one hand) she had bought. While a revolver is an example of a pistol, it is inaccurate to refer to pistols in general as revolvers. Similarly, while a dropped third strike is an example of an uncaught third strike, it is inaccurate to refer to uncaught third strikes in general as dropped third strikes.

A bit different--I would say that a magazine pistol isn't a revolver in really any case except the most casual use of the terms. My analogy would be calling a Puffs facial tissue a "Kleenex". Also, part of my point is that the phrase can have a different definition than the words in it would indicate.

Now, I cannot grasp the logic of some other points. For instance, if the term "dropped third strike" is misleading, it would seem logically that it is inaccurate or incorrect.

No, a term can be accurate by definition, but misleading. Much as a 1x1 square is accurately called a rectangle, such a term is misleading because most people think of a rectangle as "not a square".

The appeal to what a baseball fan would know is an appeal to cultural context. That necessarily introduces a cultural bias. I have referred to Wikipedia guidelines because we are editing Wikipedia and, as editors, we are expected to apply those guidelines to our editing in order to improve the articles we edit. I would suggest that the guidelines serve a positive purpose.

The guidelines are good, but these aren't relevant to this disagreement.

This following passage appears simply to be self-contradicting:

--just because the word "dropped" is inaccurate to define the rule, doesn't mean that the phrase "dropped third strike" is inaccurate as a name or euphemism for the rule.

This article is about a rule. Rules rely on definitions. If the rules are not described with precision, with defined terms, they cannot be properly understood. A reference to a rule using a term that does not accurately describe the rule is inaccurate. Consequently, the term "dropped third strike" is inaccurate.

No, I am claiming that the definition of the phrase "dropped third strike" as used in baseball terminology means any uncaught pitch that is not hit and is ruled strike three. This is like saying the term foul pole is inaccurate because the pole itself is fair--you are arguing against convention. No one disagrees that the term is confusing and is strictly/literally a poor choice of words--but it isn't wrong if it is defined that way. I am claiming that its usage by baseball fans, participants, and commentators has indeed defined it as such. Locarno

If anyone else is following this discussion, feel free to speak up and point out anything I am missing. Justus R 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, the foul line is a fair line, but nobody's going to change the terminology. They've been saying "dropped third strike" for a long as I can remember, and I can't see any point in trying to change it. Same for "ground rule double" which doesn't depend on the ground rules. Note that "inside-the-park home run" is still used, despite the fact that almost all home runs stay within the park, at least since McGwire retired. If we believe the legends, every homer ever hit at Yankee Stadium stayed "inside the park." It should be called an "in-play" homer, or a "quadruple," but we're stuck with it! WHPratt (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quantum Leap

In the "quantum leap" situation, I don't think the batter would be credited with a home run if he advanced due to errors. Not sure how to succinctly describe it (and I haven't seen the episode).

Comment is not inaccurate

Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate."

If the batter tries to reach 1st base, he must leave the dirt circle around the homeplate as well, as if he leaves for the dougout. So, the meaning of the comment should read ... once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate and heads to the dougout. Just my 2 cents --Goodgirl - talk to me 12:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire comment, read in context, gives the desired meaning. The key is

"and who is not in the process of running to first base,"

That is, once the batter leaves the dirt circle, the batter is out except when in the process of running to first base. For instance, if the strikeout wold be the third out, the batter could head to his position in the field without heading to the dugout (which is commonly done, a teammate bringing out the hat and glove), in which he is also called out.Justus R (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right I did not read carefully enough and missed that part of the comment, thanks. --Goodgirl - talk to me 20:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)