Bunt attempt....strike?

[just another ref]

Situation: high school semifinal game, player has squared to bunt, pitch comes in behind him, he arches his back and lunges forward, made every effort to avoid the ball, but it grazed him in the lower back anyway; umpire awards him 1st base; coach comes out to argue; We couldn't hear what he was saying, but from his gestures he apparently was asking for a strike, showing that the batter was in a squared position, bat extended over the plate, never pulled it back, etc. Question: What defines what is a strike as far as a bunt attempt. My understanding was that you could do anything you wanted with the bat so long as you pull it back to your chest before the pitch arrives. I'm sure this is oversimplified. Also, in this particular situation, the pitch is behind the batter, he is obviously scrambling forward in his attempt to avoid the ball, so when he switched to the "avoid the ball" mode, does that make the location and movement of his bat irrelevant, or what.
Thanks in advance for your help.

[blueump]

No attempt pull the bat back needed. Sounds as if the pitch was in the batter's box, no where near the plate.

For it to be a strike (call this oversimplification) the batter has to "make an attempt" to hit the ball. No attempt to hit the ball here, no strike.

Good call by the BLUE!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by blueump

No attempt pull the bat back needed. Sounds as if the pitch was in the batter's box, no where near the plate.

For it to be a strike (call this oversimplification) the batter has to "make an attempt" to hit the ball. No attempt to hit the ball here, no strike.

Good call by the BLUE!

I'm a little lost. If the ball had been outside, in the other batters box, that is nowhere near the plate either, but if he stands there with the bat stuck out would that be a strike? On a swing, it has to do with whether the bat crossed the plate, as opposed to if the batter "broke his wrists" as many will argue, correct? So, part of my question was, does the bat crossing the plate on the bunt attempt have significance, (I think not) and does it have to be fully retracted, or just on the way back, (obviously not attempting to hit the ball then) or what?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm a little lost. If the ball had been outside, in the other batters box, that is nowhere near the plate either, but if he stands there with the bat stuck out would that be a strike? On a swing, it has to do with whether the bat crossed the plate, as opposed to if the batter "broke his wrists" as many will argue, correct? So, part of my question was, does the bat crossing the plate on the bunt attempt have significance, (I think not) and does it have to be fully retracted, or just on the way back, (obviously not attempting to hit the ball then) or what?

It is only a strike if the umpire judges that the batter attempted to hit the ball.

If the bunter just stands there, he didn't attempt to hit the ball. He does NOT have to draw the bat back.

There is no "crossed theplate" or "broke the wrists either.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm a little lost. If the ball had been outside, in the other batters box, that is nowhere near the plate either, but if he stands there with the bat stuck out would that be a strike? On a swing, it has to do with whether the bat crossed the plate, as opposed to if the batter "broke his wrists" as many will argue, correct? So, part of my question was, does the bat crossing the plate on the bunt attempt have significance, (I think not) and does it have to be fully retracted, or just on the way back, (obviously not attempting to hit the ball then) or what?

Where do you get the "if the bat crossed the plate" strike? Its nowhere in my FED rulebook. Do you bring these "myths of baseball rules" to you when you ump games? For a strike to be called, a batter must attempt to hit the ball or the ball must go through the strike zone when over the plate.

It has nothing to do with "breaking the wrists", nothing to do with "crossing the plate". Plain and simple, the batter has to attempt to hit the ball.

On a bunt, the bat does not have to be pulled back. A batter can leave the bat in the strike zone and still have a ball called. To be a stike the ball has to be either in the strike zone, or the batter has to make an attempt to hit it.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the ball had been outside, in the other batters box, that is nowhere near the plate either, but if he stands there with the bat stuck out would that be a strike?

It would not.

On a swing, it has to do with whether the bat crossed the plate, as opposed to if the batter "broke his wrists" as many will argue, correct?

Not exactly. If the barrel of the bat travels in front of the batter's body, that is generally called a strike...the plate is not in issue. For example, you could have a batter set up deep in the box, 'offer' at a pitch, but the bat never break the front edge of the plate.

Ultimately it is the PU/BU's (if appealed) judgement ALONE as to whether the batter offered at the pitch. The bat does not have to 'break the plane' to be an offer. The 'wrist' thing is a myth, erase it from your memory banks.

Just talking about bunts, generally, most will say that if the bunter moves the bat forward toward the ball in flight, its an attempt. Just holding the bat stationary in the strike zone is NOT an attempt...the PU will call the pitch a strike/ball based on location of the pitch.

So, part of my question was, does the bat crossing the plate on the bunt attempt have significance, (I think not) and does it have to be fully retracted, or just on the way back, (obviously not attempting to hit the ball then) or what?

I do this: If a bunter squares, then moves the bat forward (however slight) toward the pitched ball in flight, its a strike. If it remains motionless/bat is being retracted/bat is fully retracted during the pitch and the pitch is out of the strike zone, its a ball.
The plate does not come into play here.

Does that help?

[Tim C]

I believe that 7-2-3 (that's from memory) in the FED case book covers the "bat over the plate" during a bunt quite well.

Simply leaving the bat over the plate does not make the action a strike -- as stated above there must be an attempt to contact the ball for that meer act to be deemed a strike.

Regards,

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by blueump

Where do you get the "if the bat crossed the plate" strike? Its nowhere in my FED rulebook. Do you bring these "myths of baseball rules" to you when you ump games? For a strike to be called, a batter must attempt to hit the ball or the ball must go through the strike zone when over the plate.

It has nothing to do with "breaking the wrists", nothing to do with "crossing the plate". Plain and simple, the batter has to attempt to hit the ball.

On a bunt, the bat does not have to be pulled back. A batter can leave the bat in the strike zone and still have a ball called. To be a stike the ball has to be either in the strike zone, or the batter has to make an attempt to hit it.

Give the guy a break.
He puts himself out there asking a question, (supposedly this is the forum for that) to improve himself, and you have to chastise him and make fun.
If he was giving these "myths" as advice that would be a different story, but the guys asking a question.
Have all lawyers lost their civility or just you?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NIump50

Give the guy a break.
He puts himself out there asking a question, (supposedly this is the forum for that) to improve himself, and you have to chastise him and make fun.
If he was giving these "myths" as advice that would be a different story, but the guys asking a question.
Have all lawyers lost their civility or just you?

To quote Sgt. Hulka, "lighten up, Francis!"

[blueump]

Originally Posted by NIump50

Give the guy a break.
He puts himself out there asking a question, (supposedly this is the forum for that) to improve himself, and you have to chastise him and make fun.
If he was giving these "myths" as advice that would be a different story, but the guys asking a question.
Have all lawyers lost their civility or just you?

How did I "chastize" him or "make fun" of him? I think you better re-read my post. I simply pointed these out as "myths". These "myths" are readily available by simply searching this web site with words like "bunt" and "strike".

Oh, and I'm not a lawyer...wherever you got that misinformation from.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

BlueUmp, you are being a little arrogant and adding to people's words... creating situations that weren't there...

Perhaps you need to reread some posts.

Your words: "For it to be a strike (call this oversimplification) the batter has to "make an attempt" to hit the ball."

I'm not sure what you intended by the parenthetical, but the statement is exactly correct.

Rich stated: "It is only a strike if the umpire judges that the batter attempted to hit the ball... If the bunter just stands there, he didn't attempt to hit the ball. He does NOT have to draw the bat back... There is no "crossed theplate" or "broke the wrists either.

Rich's statements are also exactly correct. You may want to ensure the myths are not perpetuated but Rich didn't even state, or acknowledge, them as myths. He just said there is no such thing. And that is correct.

LMan tried to clarify by stating that an attempt means moving the bat forward toward the oncoming ball... That may be good and I would slightly add to that statement - moving the bat in any direction (up, down, in, out) toward the ball and its flight path, should be considered an attempt.

And finally Tee gave the nearly exact location in the casebook to find the answer. Checkout 7.2.1 Situation B. That scenario uses words like "in front of the batter's body" and "any movement of the bat toward the ball."

I will add that we should also look at Rule 10-1-4 Note concerning check swings. "...the umpire may note whether the swing carried the barrel of the bat past the body of the batter, but final decision is based on whether the batter actually struck at the ball."

It was a simple question and hopefully 'just another ref' will gleen the necessary information and return with more questions.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by DownTownTonyBrown

BlueUmp, you are being a little arrogant and adding to people's words... creating situations that weren't there...

Perhaps you need to reread some posts.

Your words: "For it to be a strike (call this oversimplification) the batter has to "make an attempt" to hit the ball."

I'm not sure what you intended by the parenthetical, but the statement is exactly correct.

Sorry, I stand corrected. I must have read into the post that said,

"Give the guy a break. He puts himself out there asking a question, (supposedly this is the forum for that) to improve himself, and you have to chastise him and make fun.
If he was giving these "myths" as advice that would be a different story, but the guys asking a question. Have all lawyers lost their civility or just you?"

I took that as a personal attack against my answer (since it was the one that was quoted) and probably ??? shouldn't have. I was simply trying to answer the question with "a batter needs to attempt to hit the ball to be a strike". That was all I said.

My parenthesis calling it "oversimplified" was simply to protect myself from some of the flamers here who try to correct everything you type. They would have responded with every definition of "strike" in the book that I didn't list, calling me wrong and pointing out the various definitions that I failed to mention.

Sorry if I offended anyone. Not my intent in the least.

Arrogant Blue

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NIump50

Give the guy a break.
He puts himself out there asking a question, (supposedly this is the forum for that) to improve himself, and you have to chastise him and make fun.
If he was giving these "myths" as advice that would be a different story, but the guys asking a question.
Have all lawyers lost their civility or just you?

I believe you are mistaking blueump for "bluelawyer" or "lawump" making the hybrid "blueump," who is not a lawyer, but plays one on TV.

[BigUmp56]

I suppose the hybrid "lawlawyer" would be redundant?


Tim.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by blueump

Oh, and I'm not a lawyer...wherever you got that misinformation from.

My apologies