check swing, ball hits batter in hand, goes fair...

[sleebo]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by sleebo
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)

[GerryBlue]

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?

[scyguy]

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

[Kaliix]

Originally posted by scyguy
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!

[Tim C]

"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

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by Tim C


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

Bye,

Tee

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..."

[DG]

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).

[DG]

Originally posted by Tim C


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

Bye,

Tee

Do you have anything positive to add to this discussion?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by DG


Do you have anything positive to add to this discussion?

You did not seriously ask that question did you?

Peace

[sir_eldren]

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!

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

[DG]

Originally posted by JRutledge

You did not seriously ask that question did you?

Peace

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GerryBlue
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?

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 and leaving it there 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.

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by w_sohl

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..."

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.

[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!