Question for KG or other baseball historians

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question for KG or other baseball historians

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Question for KG or other baseball historians

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question for KG or other baseball historians - 8/5/2009 11:35:55 PM

akcranker

Posts: 477
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

I was searching for an answer to my own baseball question, "have there ever been a game with no foul balls hit?" when I came across another question that had me intrigued and no one can seem to find the answer so I thought I would post the person's question here.

quote:

Does anyone remember a rule from the late forties or early fifties that was if the batter hit four foul balls after reaching a full count, the forth foul ball constituted a third strike? If yes, can you give me a reference book to look at the rule? My Mom remembers this and she is trying to prove it to someone that thinks she's crazy.

Post #: 1

RE: Question for KG or other baseball historians - 8/6/2009 12:09:26 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Here's the "wiki answer" to your question:

"I'm almost positive that sometime in the mid to late 50's, maybe only in the American League, and for a short period - maybe only a year or so, that rule was instituted.

It was the result of several consecutive years when batters would try to wear the pitcher out with fouling the ball off instead of trying to get a hit. Unfortunately, the only substantiation I've ever been able to run across, was The Statler Brothers. That line is in their lyrics for 'Do You Remember These?' 'Four foul balls - yer out!'

Perhaps in the decade after the game was first started, perhaps; in softball leagues, perhaps; in the women's leagues during the 40's, perhaps; in local games in local communities by agreement to speed up the game, perhaps.

PS. I just checked on the Rules through the 20th Century and I can't find anything about four foull balls and your 'OUT'.

No, there has never been a rule concerning calling a batter out for fouling off pitches with the exception that the foul was due to a failed bunt attempt on a third strike. Actually, before 1901 in the National League and 1903 in the American League there was a rule called the No Foul Strike rule. This rule stated that foul balls were only counted as strikes in three instances: a failed bunt attempt, a foul tip, and if the umpire judged that the batter had not made an 'honest' attempt to hit the ball into fair territory. The third instance was very rarely used and only when the umpire deemed the batter to be fooled by the pitch and was swinging solely to make contact and not have the pitch by called a strike by the umpire."

I looked at the summary of rules changes on "Baseball Almanac" and I saw no mention of that change in the "foul strike" rule.

(in reply to akcranker)

Post #: 2

RE: Question for KG or other baseball historians - 8/6/2009 12:36:23 AM

Wrathchild

Posts: 817
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: Reading, PA
Status: offline

I was going to mention the Statler Brothers. :) I remember as a kid we used to play with a 4 foul balls you're out rule, so it obviously comes from somewhere.

_____________________________

J.G. Wrathchild, Manager, St. Louis Cardinals (1900-1906), Brooklyn Superbas (1907, 1908)

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 3

RE: Question for KG or other baseball historians - 8/6/2009 3:48:13 AM

akcranker

Posts: 477
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

Actually that wiki just quotes the message board replies that I got the original question from.

But thanks.. I wasn't looking for an answer you could search for on the net. I was looking for your own knowledge of the history of the game.

Thanks again though

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 4