It's not a matter of not knowing the rules. (Except, of course, judging from the original post, you may not.)

The question was what does "pro pitching" rules have to do with the situation of getting hid in the nads? Nothing. Mentioning "pro rules" is like writing the FED test....putting in more information than needed to correctly answer the question.

I see you're a believer in the old "say it often enough and somebody will believe it" school of thought.

No, actually I just hit the submit reply button quickly to discover that I wanted to put "Argghh" at the end to see if I could look as stupid as Trigger. So I hit the back button thinking it wouldn't go through, typed in the "Argghh", and it put both posts up.

No one "cherry picked" anything. I put down what was pertinent and nothing more. The inference is yours and whoever else said he doesn't know the rules. He (the umpire behind the plate) called the pitch a strike because the batter (in his judgement) offered. Whether he judged that because the bat was not pulled back or because he thought the batter actually offered does not matter, it is his judgement, not yours or mine or anyone else's, that matters. This is the same for any "checked swing", unless the umpire asks (if he ruled ball) then his judgement stands.

NFump signature
 

NFump,
I respect your right to your opinion.
As I read the original post I inferred that because the batter did not pull his bat back, the PU called the pitch a strike as being offered at. TriggerMN did not, and has not, provided any additional information to change my thinking on that analysis. Based on that information, I disagree with the called strike as being offered at because the batter " never pulled his bat back. " I have not, and PROBABLY would never call, a bunt attempt a strike if the batter just holds his bat there. If we disagree here, I have no problem with that.

I disagree with your theory that one umpire should never make an adverse comment about another umpire. I have worked with umpires that have done a terrible job and I have told my assignor that I will not work with them again and explain why. My comments about him would be considered adverse - but accurate. I would not express those feelings to coaches or competitors, but I will gladly share them with assignors, so I do not have to be embarrased again by working with them. I won't go into a lot of detail about those incidents, just suffice to say they were unwilling to receive constructive criticism - therefore we don't work together again.
If that makes me " ungentlemanly " or " despicable ", so be it.

I guess some people forgot to kick the dog and beat the wife today and are trying to make up for it...

I thought this post was a story with the moral, "Always wear a cup" - It really didn't come across as asking for help to decide if a batter offered on a bunt attempt or not?

Unfortunately, he never pulled the bat back. Guy goes down like he's been shot, and I call a dead ball strike on the offer.

As I read the quote above, I see two sentences. Nowhere do I read because the batter never pulled the bat back, I called a strike. In fact, the second sentence specifically stated "strike on the offer." I think the second response clarified any misconceptions from the original and did so respectfully. The rest of the "comments" were not necessary.

Lighten up guys and show a little respect - you are starting to sound like coaches.

Matthew,
I think my recent post explains my reasoning.
However, you are correct.
This was a post about the moral of the story.
I withdraw from this post now.
See ya!

OT, I agree with how you would call the attempted bunt, if he just holds the bat out and doesn't move it towards the ball, then no offer. But, that's my criteria and yours (as well as alot of others). Two people can look at the same check swing and one say no, he didn't and the other say yes, he did. It's all judgement. As for the signature, it a quote from a fella named Ford C. Frick. I believe it's in reference to one umpire putting down another in public. Here's another one:

Take pride in your work at all times. Remember, respect for an umpire is created off the field as well as on.

Have a good day and a better tomorrow.

CLASS, CLASS, CLASS
 

Seriously, I am sure no one wants to talk about it, so lighten-up!

ALL of us may get hit in the MASK.
Some of us may get hit in the HELMET.
But only a few of us will return after a powershot to the HEAD!

Nothing personal, butt, STOP all that a$$ changing too.

Let me get this straight. The batter squares to bunt; he holds the bat in the strike zone and never offers at the pitch that runs in and down on him and hits him in his "reserved partking space" and you call a "dead ball strike" on the batter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't the correct ruling have been to award the batter or his subsitute first base for being hit by a pitch that was out of the strike zone.

MTD, Sr.

The second sentance makes it seem the batter offered, at that point pulling the bat back is pointless, the offer was still there. His first sentance is leading to the thought that the reason for the offer was because he did not pull the bat back which, I would hope, we all know is not what should have been called.

I realize he is trying to tell a painful yet humorous story. His problem is either he really does not know the rule or he really needs to learn to write better to make his story more accurate.