R2 and no outs. The left-handed batter squares in the box and has his bat over the plate in a sacrificing manner. The ball "rides in on him" striking him on the arm. The PU was somewhat blocked in his observation, and ask the BU, who is in C position, for assistance. Both agreed that he was HPB, and that he did not offer at the pitch. Naturally, the defense objected because he had the bat over the plate. We know that from the Top 40 Baseball Rules Myths and the NFHS Casebook ruling 7.2.1. SITUATION B that the mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to bunt. Can anyone expound as to the "advantage-disadvantage" philosphy involved with this rule??

If merely holdiong the bat over the zone was a "swing", then it would be impossible for the batter to bring the bat back and have it judged to not be a swing (you can't "undo" a swing). Since the batter can bring the bat back, it must not be a swing merely to hold the bat out.

It's tougher to make a judgment call on what happened, than on the rules.

1. If the ball touches the batter in flight in the strike zone, its a strike. (See definition of strike). Advantage to pitcher who can throw a strike.

2. If the ball touches the batter as he strikes at it, it's a strike (if a bunt, possibly strike 3). Advantage to pitcher who can get batter to swing at a pitch.

3. If not, it's a HB. Advantage to hitter for pitcher who can't throw a strike and hits the batter. Unless, "the batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball." (6.08(b)) No advantage to batter who could have gotten out of the way.

No advantage to batter with big smile on his face when ball hits him . That's the one who could have gotten out of the way.

To " swing" the bat is an active motion. Merely holding the bat is a passive one.

If we thought this way having the ball pass the pat anywhere close to the plate would be a swing.

That is why we say he "offered" at the pitch.

Blaine

I like it.
 

Good call, DJ! :)