Even though Hines apparently reached on the missed strike 3....
- Thread starter thekimmer
- Start date
My last year playing baseball
Rec league, probably around 7-8th grade. We had a a great pitcher that had gotten tired of travel ball and decided to just play with us bums. He averaged more than 3 strikeouts an inning because no one could hit him and we couldn’t catch him.
Rec league, probably around 7-8th grade. We had a a great pitcher that had gotten tired of travel ball and decided to just play with us bums. He averaged more than 3 strikeouts an inning because no one could hit him and we couldn’t catch him.
There's 3 or 4 ways a player can be out without a ball in glove already.
So this old argument holds no water.
So this old argument holds no water.
Any rule that adds offense and base runners should be considered a good thing, in general. The more baseball trends towards strike outs and a home run here or there, the more boring it is. The pitchers have to consider the dropped 3rd strike when they throw that sweeping hook with 2 strikes, and that's a good thing in my opinion.
Last edited:
Others have already pointed out 7 ways to record an out without ball in glove. There are other things within the rule structure of baseball that do not support this esoteric rule. First of all is the act of catching a pitched ball has nothing to do with the act of a batter failing to hit strike 3. Another is if the catcher has to catch the ball in the air to record the 3rd strike why doesn't he have to do so for strike 1 and 2? The last one is the scoring credit for recording an out. If the shortstop fields a groundball and throws it to first the first baseman gets credit for the putout. A flyball out is credited to the player who catches it. If catching strike 3 in the air is required to record a K then logically the catcher should get credit for the out. If it is missed & must be thrown to first the 1st baseman should get a putout. There is still potential jeopardy for the defense from not catching a 3rd strike as runners can advance at will.
So again I say, and will continue to say every time this happens, stupid rule.
Last edited:
Agreed, and most people who defend it are just trying to come across as "smart" and "knowledgeable about baseball" rather than critically considering all of the advantages and disadvantages caused by the rule.
Sick strikeouts are cool too though. I mean, not when it's my team striking out, but as a neutral fan, I like to be impressed by pitchers.
In all fairness that one requires touching the base while in possession of the ball.
The rule is there to keep the pitcher honest on their third strike pitch selection. To record the out, the catcher has to either catch the ball without it hitting the ground, tag out or throw out the runner if it does hit the ground without a runner on 1st. I believe that the scenario should be in play even with a runner on first, but that would screw with the game too much given you drop the third strike and potentially get a double play out of the deal. That wouldn't be good and place way too much stress on the runner on first.
Right, the only credible defense of the rule is that while it is nonsensical it has been around so long that it is now an ingrained cherished traditional part of baseball. Trying to defend it logically is frankly ridiculous.
How does it keep the pitcher 'honest'? Are you saying trying to fool the batter with pitch selection is 'dishonest'? Actually the rule has no such origin. It is a vestige of the very early evolutionary years of the game where the intent of pitching was to induce contact. Outs were recorded on the bases so batters ran after strike 3 and strike out's did not exist. This philosophy survived the introduction of competitive pitching and strikeouts and went through numerous iterations over the years to the current rule and had nothing to do with an intent to regulate the pitcher.
I played baseball, I've listened to/watch MSU baseball for 30 years, I played a million games of MVP Baseball, and I still have absolutely no idea what constitutes an infield fly.
Inducing contact (and baserunning) is a good thing.
Even if you don't like the rule, I don't see why anyone would care. It's more exciting than a simple strike out.
A. Personally, I’d change, but I don’t lose sleep over
C. This is only at the pro level, and once you recognize that pro ball exists for entertainment purposes only, I think it actually starts to make sense. The NBA isn’t getting rid of something that creates end of game excitement as is
B… this is the one for me. Get stripped a foot from the goal line, and the ball bounces sideways over the sideline? All good, next down. Same scenario, but this time, the ball bounces diagonally across the goal line and out bounds? Sorry, it’s a turnover.
It is just absurd to me for there to be two completely polar outcomes depending upon nothing more than which way a ball bounces
C. This is only at the pro level, and once you recognize that pro ball exists for entertainment purposes only, I think it actually starts to make sense. The NBA isn’t getting rid of something that creates end of game excitement as is
B… this is the one for me. Get stripped a foot from the goal line, and the ball bounces sideways over the sideline? All good, next down. Same scenario, but this time, the ball bounces diagonally across the goal line and out bounds? Sorry, it’s a turnover.
It is just absurd to me for there to be two completely polar outcomes depending upon nothing more than which way a ball bounces
B. Worst case scenario should be ball returned to the line of scrimmage and loss of down. Best case ball returned to the position of the fumble to the offensive team.
This is a sorry rule because the team drove the ball all the way to the goal line and they are being penalized for a fumble nobody recovers. Just makes me want to slap someone!
This is a sorry rule because the team drove the ball all the way to the goal line and they are being penalized for a fumble nobody recovers. Just makes me want to slap someone!
I'm sorry but the dumbest thing in baseball is coaches/managers wearing uniforms with numbers on them. It is ridiculous and looks ridiculous. It looks like an old man playing dress up when it's not halloween. Imagine it in any other sport. If I could photoshop, it would make for some good material. Imagine Calipari in in some bball shorts and a tanktop, and maybe add a some of that athletic tape. Maybe football coaches should wear shoulder pads and all. It would make you forget all about Dan in some shorts.
It's the opposite problem basketball has.
A suit and tie is a silly uniform to coach a sporting event in.
Football got this one right. Windbreaker, sweatshirt, polo, who gives a 17.
A suit and tie is a silly uniform to coach a sporting event in.
Football got this one right. Windbreaker, sweatshirt, polo, who gives a 17.
I agree. I believe the last player/manager in baseball was Pete Rose. That was the reason for it.
It keeps them honest because they are penalized for throwing severely sick **** that breaks hard and is out of control. If the catcher didn't have to catch the ball, imagine the filthy **** they could throw, without reprecussion.
Women’s college incorporated it when they went to 4 quarters about five years ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if the men’s college game adopted it at some point.
How long should they be able to hold it?
I only have sidewalk soccer knowledge, but it seems to me that without a time limit the GK could just milk the clock if they have a lead. An offensive player can’t even really pressure the GK while they have the ball in their hands, right?
Latest posts
-
-
-
So, when you mortgage your future....
- Latest: MagnoliaHunter
-
Get unlimited access today.