[YoungRighty]

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?

How about this?

While squared to bunt, if the batter shows evidence that he is tracking the path of the ball, and this continues until the ball arrives at the plate, then there is an obvious effort to bunt the ball.

If he does not track the pitch, such as in the case of a pitch in the dirt mentioned earlier, then there is clearly no intent to bunt the ball. Simply holding the bat over the plate is not, in and of itself, an attempt to bunt the ball.

Or if he begins to track the pitch, but then clearly abandons this effort before the ball reaches the plate, then it is not an attempt to bunt. He could abandon the effort by pulling the bat back, but if the pitch is very low or very high, simply stopping the movement of the bat at, say, waist height, would be a clear indication that he is not trying to bunt the ball.

The point is, it is not the position of the bat but the actions of the batter that determine whether it is an attempt to bunt the ball or not.

Does that make sense?

[Edited by YoungRighty on Apr 19th, 2004 at 09:36 AM]