from major league baseball's official rules

[rone]

I've always wondered how the rule that allows batters to run to first after the catcher misses strike 3 is phrased in the rulebook.  I finally dug in and found it.

---

6.00 The Batter

6.05
A batter is out when_ [...] (b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher; "Legally caught" means in the catcher's glove before the ball touches the ground. [...] If smothered against his body or protector, it is a catch provided the ball struck the catcher's glove or hand first.

6.09
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; When a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. If, however, he actually reaches the dugout or dugout steps, he may not then attempt to go to first base and shall be out.

---

So, that Escobar pitch that Pierzynski swung through for strike 3, did it hit the ground before Paul caught it?  I won't say what i think.  All i know is that i can't think of a crazier play in baseball in my experience.

Comments

[eagle]

I don't think it did, but I don't think it was anywhere near as clear-cut and obvious as the commentators were claiming it was. It was within an eighth of an inch at least.

Such a bizarre rule.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Baseball has a lot of hinky rules, but this one definitely takes the cake, even over the infield fly rule.

[mskala.livejournal.com]

I rather like the official definition of the shape of home plate, from which it's possible to prove that 2=576/289.

[twillis.livejournal.com]

I can think of a crazier play, but only if you aren't limiting it to things that actually happened.

[opadit.livejournal.com]

I don't like games to be decided on bad or controversial officiating -- nobody does -- but I tend to think, well, if you don't want to lose a game because of a bad call, next time score more points so that you don't risk losing a game because of a bad call. (Same with losing the wild-card spot in the playoffs. If you don't want to have a bunch of must-win games at the end of the season, then win more games during the summer!)

[littleamerica.livejournal.com]

I think this was essentially Mike Scioscia's analysis last night. But then again (wait for it) he used to be a catcher.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Heh heh, yep, i was thinking, "Oh, Scioscia is gonna give Paul an earful tonight."

The Pine Tar Game

[rotojeff.livejournal.com]

I'd say the George Brett Pine Tar game back in the 80's comes pretty close. For more, go here:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/boxscore/07241983.shtml

Regards,

Jeff

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

That was certainly a crazy call, but what makes that game memorable is all George Brett's reaction.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Hey, i used to be one of your customers. I stopped playing fantasy sports, though, i wanted to spend that time on other stuff.

Other Stuff

[rotojeff.livejournal.com]

It can be a major time-suck; I can empathize. I have a one-year old daughter now, and it's amazing how quickly priorities can change.

In the words of Bartles & James, thanks for your support.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

My pleasure; you guys have a good product.

Merkle's Boner

[rotojeff.livejournal.com]

Actually, debate about the play on our staff message board included a much better example:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/boxscore/09231908.shtml

This is the sort of thing that actually makes me a bigger fan of baseball - the unusual plays, rules, the idea that something remarkable can happen in any single game. Good times...

[peglegpete.livejournal.com]

Heh. Back in the day, if I had two strikes and saw a pitch come in that I knew the catcher couldn't handle, I'd whiff away and scurry off like a mofo. It worked almost every time, too.

[iayork.livejournal.com]

In Ryne Sandberg's column, he made a good point -- that Paul screwed up by taking it for granted. No matter what the call, there was no cost to Paul to tag Pierzynski, or toss the ball to first instead of rolling it to the pitcher; or, at the very least, ask the umpire what the call was. Sandberg's interpretation is that Paul was trying to "sell" the out, by making it seem unthinkable that it was not an out; but why not just tag Pierzynski and have it done with?

In playoffs, more than any other time, the teams that win are the most professional. Paul didn't do the professional thing, and his team paid the price.

Whacky play, though.

[joepro.livejournal.com]

Ah, the subtle nuances of baseball. I read a quote in the paper today, I believe the person quoted was an ex-catcher. He said he believed that the ball was caught cleanly and never touched the ground. His reason? If a ball hits the dirt, it will often become scuffed. A scuffed ball will favor the pitcher. Since the inning was over, it would not have made sense for the catcher to roll a scuffed ball back to the mound, so his team could have a disadvantage when they came up to bat. It's also clearly obvious he could have simply tagged the player or thrown the ball over to first base. A bush league call by the ump if you ask me, but I'm rooting for the White Sox anyway.