I haven't seen it in any of my boxscores but that isn't the reason for this post. I don't understand the intent behind the ruling permitting the batter to run to 1st base on a dropped third strike. Why was that rule written? If it is simply an error on the catcher, well, the batter has struck out already and can't be considered a runner but apparently he is. Did the catchers from the early years intentionally drop third strikes to coax other runners to run then get gunned down....so a rule was written to allow the batter to advance in order to prevent intentional dropped strikes?

It dates to the earliest written rules for baseball and possibly back to cricket or rounders.   Check out this link for more information: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=226316.

Thanks Zub

The drop for a 3 strike is stupid. When a batter gets to first base, its useualy because of a nasty pitch that is a ball, or a catchers fault. It makes the game complex which it should not be.  

I disagree.  It's part of the game.  It is exciting and fun to watch when a batter gets to first on dropped third strike.  If it wasn't for that rule, the Dodgers might have beaten the Yankees in the '41 World Series.  Not that this would be a bad thing, but...