bat in strike zone

[btdt]

I have tried for days to find the rule in Fed book that holding the bat over the plate doesn't constitute a strike if the pitch isn't in the strike zone.
Can anyone provide the rule number? I know I have seen it in writing.

[UmpJM]

btdt,

Fed Case Play 7.2.1B - last sentence.

JM

[btdt]

Thank you

[ozzy6900]

It is only a strike in softball (as of this year, I believe).

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

It is only a strike in softball (as of this year, I believe).

You are correct, Sir!

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by waltjp

You are correct, Sir!

I never realized how much I look like Ed McMahnn!

[Tim C]

"And of course as with many things in this great game, we get to decide what is an attempt. A player who holds his bat in the strike-zone and then doesn't move at all when the ball comes through the zone, is going to be lookin' at 0-1 when the next pitch comes. (Assuming the count was 0-0.)"

So, I am assuming that you are calling the location of the pitch not simply having the bat over the plate, right?

You have confused me a little.

Regards,

[Tim C]

"I am calling what I perceive to be an attempt at the pitch. I cannot see any other logical reason for the bat to be in the strike zone other than to be offering at the pitch. (As always I am willing to see other points of view on this.)"

Sadly this is what I thought you meant.

We can't make it anymore simple. In baseball simply holding the bat over the plate does not indicate an attempt. There has to be clear movement of the bat to attempt to hit the ball for it to be called a strike.

Location of the pitch can make it a strike -- simply holding the bat cannot.

Don't make up rules.

[gfgartland]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Location of the pitch can make it a strike -- simply holding the bat cannot.

I feel that I have not been clear enough. I am not saying or implying that only holding the bat in the zone is a strike.

I am trying to counter (what I perceive to be) the idea that holding the bat in the zone, and not moving, is a ball (when the pitch is out of the strike zone).

Possible play: If the player holds the bat in the zone (anywhere, the middle or the edges), and the does not move the bat after the initial placement, and the pitch comes close to, and in such a way that the it appears the player need not move the bat to make the bunt.

I feel that a strike should be called, as in my judgment an attempt has been made.

Originally Posted by Tim C

Don't make up rules.

I don't feel that I am making up rules, but only seeing an interpretation that does apply to some instances, but not all.

[jicecone]

"Possible play: If the player holds the bat in the zone (anywhere, the middle or the edges), and the does not move the bat after the initial placement, and the pitch comes close to, and in such a way that the it appears the player need not move the bat to make the bunt."

You are joking right. Is this like from the King James version of interpretations?

Ok, you didn't make up a rule but you have really butchered an interpretation.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by gfgartland

I feel that I have not been clear enough. I am not saying or implying that only holding the bat in the zone is a strike.

Hmmmmm...but then:

Originally Posted by gfgartland

I am trying to counter (what I perceive to be) the idea that holding the bat in the zone, and not moving, is a ball (when the pitch is out of the strike zone).

And you are basing this counter on...?

Originally Posted by gfgartland

Possible play: If the player holds the bat in the zone (anywhere, the middle or the edges), and the does not move the bat after the initial placement, and the pitch comes close to, and in such a way that the it appears the player need not move the bat to make the bunt.

Not a strike.

Originally Posted by gfgartland

I feel that a strike should be called, as in my judgment an attempt has been made.

Then you are wrongly judging if the batter made no attempt and the pitch was not in the strike zone.

I

Originally Posted by gfgartland

don't feel that I am making up rules, but only seeing an interpretation that does apply to some instances, but not all.

It does not apply to a pitch which is out of the strike zone. There is no instance that will make it true, so you are making up rules.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by gfgartland

And of course as with many things in this great game, we get to decide what is an attempt. A player who holds his bat in the strike-zone and then doesn't move at all when the ball comes through the zone, is going to be lookin' at 0-1 when the next pitch comes. (Assuming the count was 0-0.) ................

............................. I don't feel that I am making up rules, but only seeing an interpretation that does apply to some instances, but not all.

Maybe you need to look at what a strike is by definition in the rule books. I will provide OBR, NCAA and FED for you.

OBR Section 2

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip.
*****************************************

NCAA
Strike
A legal pitch that can be called for one of eight criteria (see 7-4).

NCAA 7-4
A Strike
SECTION 4. A strike is:
a. A legal pitch struck at by the batter without the ball touching the bat;
b. A legal pitch that enters the strike zone (see definition and diagram in Rule 2) in flight and is not struck at;

A.R. 1—The plate umpire should determine if the pitch is a strike in relationship to the batter’s normal position as the pitch crosses home plate. Any part of the ball passing over
any part of the plate, from the bottom of the kneecaps to the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, is a strike. The pitch should be judged to
be a strike or a ball as it crosses home plate, not where it is caught by the catcher.
A.R. 2—If a pitched ball strikes the ground in front of the batter and the batter swings at it, the ball is in play if hit and a strike if missed.

c. A legal pitch that becomes a foul not caught on the fly when the batter has fewer than two strikes;
d. An attempt to bunt that results in a foul not legally caught;
e. A legal pitch that touches the batter when the batter swings and misses (the ball is dead and no runners advance);
f. A foul tip;
g. Awarded after the batter fails to take a position in the batter’s box immediately after ordered by the umpire (see 7-1-b-[2] and 7-1-d); and
h. Awarded if the batter deliberately steps back in the box or swings in such a manner to attempt to create catcher’s interference. If the swing hits the catcher or the mitt, the batter shall be called out. All base runners shall return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.
*********************************************

FED 7-2-1

SECTION 2 STRIKES, BALLS AND HITS
ART. 1 ... A strike is charged to the batter when:
a. a pitch enters any part of the strike zone in flight and is not struck at;
b. a pitch is struck at and missed (even if the pitch touches the batter);
c. a pitch becomes a foul when the batter has less than two strikes;
d. a pitch becomes a foul tip (even on third strike) or a foul from an attempted bunt;
e. a batter delays (6-2-4d-1 and 7-3-1); or
f. a batted ball contacts the batter in the batter's box (foul ball).

There, now did you see your statement anywhere in the rules listed? I didn't think so and that means you are making up rules! That is unless you are officiating fast pitch softball, then you are absolutely correct as of 2008.

You are correct in saying that we determine what an offer is but you must have an offer to determine one. Holding the bat motionless in the zone does not constitute an offer in baseball under any circumstances.

Also, the learned umpires that were trying to guide you have over 150 years experience combined. One of them has over 4000 games logged officiating all three of the rule sets you see above including MiLB. It would behoove you to listen to these people.

[gfgartland]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Also, the learned umpires that were trying to guide you have over 150 years experience combined. One of them has over 4000 games logged officiating all three of the rule sets you see above including MiLB. It would behoove you to listen to these people.

I am listening to these people, that is the reason that I joined to open my mind to the knowledge elsewhere in this game. I also trying to (as I said previously ) to look at things from another perspective. This is something that I have been doing with other umpires on a face-to-face basis for years. Someone throws out a "I had this happen..." and we discuss. Typically it leads us to some interesting and outrageous "If this happened..." I am sorry if my tactics (for lack of a better word) were misconstrued as being stubborn.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by gfgartland

I am listening to these people, that is the reason that I joined to open my mind to the knowledge elsewhere in this game. I also trying to (as I said previously ) to look at things from another perspective. This is something that I have been doing with other umpires on a face-to-face basis for years. Someone throws out a "I had this happen..." and we discuss. Typically it leads us to some interesting and outrageous "If this happened..." I am sorry if my tactics (for lack of a better word) were misconstrued as being stubborn.

Sounds to me like you are trying to play Devil's Advocate which is fine in many cases. This, however, is one of those cases where you have taken the scenario to the edge of the cliff. There is no way that you can prove your point (and many have tried through the years). So far, the only ones that have agreed with your idea are the Fast Pitch Softball people. I doubt that Baseball will ever change, but if it does, you are covered!

Finis

[SAump]

Originally Posted by gfgartland

I feel that I have not been clear enough. I am not saying or implying that only holding the bat in the zone is a strike.

I am trying to counter (what I perceive to be) the idea
that holding the bat in the zone, and not moving, is a ball (when the pitch is out of the strike zone). Possible play: If the player holds the bat in the zone (anywhere, the middle or the edges), and the does not move the bat after the initial placement, and the pitch comes close to, and in such a way that the it appears the player need not move the bat to make the bunt.

I feel that a strike should be called, as in my judgment an attempt has been made.



I don't feel that I am making up rules, but only seeing an interpretation that does apply to some instances, but not all.

You're saying a ball sailed over/under the motionless bat and you're going to call it a strike.

The part in bold is not a strike, it is a ball, and I believe you know it to be true.
The part in red is directly opposite of what is true.
Stop trying so hard to make a wrong a right.

Now if the pitch is in the strike zone, I'm with you and just about everyone else.