[Kaliix]

I kinda figured I might get some flack for the common practice remark, but I think I am asking a serious question.

In practice, I have seen umpires, mostly at the major league level, call a strike on a bunt if the batter stays squared and keeps the bat out in front in position.

As a player, I was taught to pull the bat back, otherwise it's a strike.

I have been reading the FED rules and I can't find anything about the batter attempting to bunt or his intent to hit. Rule 7-2-1-b simply says it's a strike if ..."a pitch is struck at and missed."

Now on a batted ball with a swing, intent is more plainly interpreted. On a bunt, since by definition, there is no swing, the batter is simply holding the bat in the path of the ball, if the batter stays squared and the bat is in the bunting position, ie. not pulled back, how is there not intent to bunt? The bat is held out for the purpose of bunting. That is intent to me. You had the bat in a position to hit the ball. You missed the ball. I see a strike.

I mean this sincerely, please explain how that is wrong?

Originally posted by Kaliix

I thought it was one of those commom practice things that if the batter doesn't pull the bat back on a bunt, it's a strike.

Now, Rule 2-8-1 states..."A bunt is a fair ball in which the batter does not swing to hit the ball, but holds the bat in the path of the ball to tap it slowly to the infield."

If the batter holds the bat over the plate and doesn't draw it back as the pitch comes then he is attempting to hold the bat in the path of the ball in an attempt to bunt it. If he misses the ball, too bad, strike!