Hey guys. I'm pretty new to this area of the board, but not as new as my post # may suggest. I like to read and try to learn from the different threads. But I've got a question so here goes...
Pitch comes in high and tight on batter who starts to swing but successfully checks it. However, the ball hits the batter in the hand and rolls into fair territory. What do we have here? Thanks for your help. I look forward to learning from this board in the future.

"Successfully checks it" ==> no swing ==> HBP

(If he was swinging, strike and a dead ball)

One the one hand, it looks like the batter put himself in harms way by initially going for the ball. What if after he "successfully" checks his swing, he makes no attempt to avoid the ball. Haven't we a "ball" on the batter?

it depends. You have to determine intent. Do you feel batter was intending to swing but checked then was hit? Or do you feel he intentional stuck out his hand to order to be hit by the pitch? When in doubt, award the base.

Now, the fun begins when they square to bunt. Kid squares, leaves bat over plate and is hit with pitch. Did he attempt to bunt ball? If so, dead ball, strike. Remember, leaving the bat over the plate does not constitute an attempt. Just because a batter leaves bat over plate does not mean we have a strike, assuming the ball misses the bat. Bunter must make attempt to bunt for it to be a strike

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!

Oh My God,
 

"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!"

______________________________________________

Christ, the inmates are now fully in charge of this site.

Bye,

Tee

Re: Oh My God,
 

Why don't you impart some of your wisdom on this subject? Don't take me as beinga smart a**...., OK maybe I am, but seriously, what would you do? Would you call a strike if he/she leaves the bat out there or would it be a ball, and waht things would you use to determine what your decision is? Alot of us "inexperienced" officials come to this site because we aren't sure, other think they know, but until one tells us how it is really supposed to be called we will continue to call it incorrectly. For example, in basketball, after you have established a pivot foot you may pick that foot up as long as you pass or shoot the ball before you return your pivot foot to the floor. If you dribble it is a traveling violation. Until about 5-6 years ago I called this traveling every time, I learned that it was incorrect from people that would definately know and now I no longer call that incorrectly. Just a little input from the ones that are supposed to know would be nice.

"They're coming to take me away Ha Ha, They're coming to take me away Ho Ho He He Ha Ha, to the funny farm..."

This was a greatly debated subject at a recent association meeting I attended. A bat held over the plate need not be considered a strike, if the umpire does not think an attempt was made to bunt the ball. There are some who would call that an automatic strike. You have to decide for yourself, if what you saw was an attempt to strike at the ball (ie bunt).

Re: Oh My God,
 

Do you have anything positive to add to this discussion?

Re: Re: Oh My God,
 

You did not seriously ask that question did you? :D

Peace

Nope, not too bad if you're using Fed rules. If a batter holds his bat at his waist for a bunt, and doesn't attemp to strike the pitch that hits the ground in front of the plate, then the rules plainly state that it's umpire discretion as to whether or not the ball was struck at. If the bat wasn't carried past the body or a motion wasn't made towards the ball, then there is no strike, even if the bat is still there when the catcher gets it. Sure, you'll hear hell from the defensive coach, but it's in the rules.

Take a look in the Case Book. Rule 7-2-1 Situation C. A coach arguing whether or not the batter held his bat out is arguing strikes and balls. You have to be fair in that type of situation: there are kids out there who do know the rules and study them. I wouldn't be surprised if the occasional player knows that he can hold his bat out on a passed ball and still get a ball, or he can pull back nonchalantly when it's way outside and the catcher has to dive off the plate.

-Craig
Washington State

Re: Re: Re: Oh My God,
 

I knew the answer before I asked. Nothing but grief from some posters, with nothing positive to add.

This "bat held in the strike zone is a strike" is one of the myths of baseball. It's easily decided simply by reading any rule book. A strike occurs when: (1) any part of the ball passes over any part of the plate (within the up and down parameters); or (2) the batter attempts to hit the ball.

As near as I can figure it, I can't hit the ball (perhaps the ball can hit my bat) unless I move the bat to the ball. I gotta swing at or tap (bunt) the pitch.

This myth got started back in the 60s in Little League when rules interpreters at that level decided young kids were being coached to "hit" the ball by putting the bat over the plate <i>and leaving it there</i> because they lacked the skill to tap the ball properly.

Another issue: Any time a batter attempts to hit the ball but checks his swing, the umpire cannot fault him when the pitch rides in on him. He can't check his swing and bail out at the same time. Simply: He's hit by the pitch and heads for first.

Re: Re: Oh My God,
 

If the bat remains still, it's a ball if not in the strike zone, or a strike if in the strike zone. The bat MUST MOVE toward the ball to be considered a swing.

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?

attempt to bunt
 

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]

Re: attempt to bunt
 

No.

why not?
 

Would you care to elaborate?

[/B][/QUOTE]

CASE 7.2.1B, last sentences: "In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area, is a strike. The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to bunt."

Re: why not?
 

No.

CASE 7.2.1B, last sentences: "In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area, is a strike. The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to bunt." [/B][/QUOTE]Oops, I beat you to this citation by 6 minutes. Lah, me.

The most common instance I can think of where the batter tries to bunt, leaves the bat out there, but is clearly not trying to hit the ball is when the pitch comes inside and the batter has to bail. He's abandoned trying to hit the ball, but the bat remains over the plate - this is not a strike.

In MLB, most hitters WILL try to pull back when they've decided not to try to bunt the ball ... but this doesn't mean they are REQUIRED to.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
[B]
"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?

[QUOTE]

Unless the batter were to square and place the bat at the exact spot where the ball will come (in which case the bat would make contact with the ball), the batter would have to move the bat to "strike at" (ie bunt) the ball.

Oops, I beat you to this citation by 6 minutes. Lah, me. [/B][/QUOTE]

I see a one-word response from you ("No.") six minutes prior to my citation (a response I agree with), but I don't see any citation from you.

Lah, you.

what you have to look for is movement of the bat toward the ball, this is intent. The act of squaring to bunt does not constitute intent.

Had a weird situation Sat in a tournament. Inside and high, ball hits butt of bat as kid is trying to get out of the way, ball rolls toward mound. I bounce out and signal fair. NOONE REACTS. I stand there waiting for defensive player to pick up ball and tag batter. Batter stands in box. Finally pitcher (who has alittle sense) picks up ball and tags batter. I bang him. Offensive coach looks at me puzzled. He says to me "how was I supposed to know it was fair?". I told him I gave the nonverbal fair ball signal.

Bob,
Thank you! As a new umpire, all I have is the NFHS Rule book and my own understanding of baseball, however misguided it is now looking to be.

I was scouring the rule book trying to find some guidance on that particular situation and I didn't find any. I don't have a case book (and perhaps I should) to look at, so your help is much appreciated.

I stand corrected.

CASE 7.2.1B, last sentences: "In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area, is a strike. The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to bunt." [/B][/QUOTE]

YoungRighty, I believe what your asking the umpire to do besides watching for motion by the bat, along with looking at the location of the pitch, is track the batter tracking the ball? WOW

I CAN'T DO THAT. One eye on the ball, one eye on the bat and one.........oops ran out of eyes. Cyclops, where are you now?