Bunt

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

For those who side with Fittysix and Mueller, remember this: A pitch that is not struck at and not in the strike zone is a ball.

Excellent. I got one of those things too.

"AN IDIOT WHO LEAVES HIS BAT TO BUNT at our near the plate IS ASSUMED TO BE STRIKING THE BASEBALL ....

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=fitump56][quote=SanDiegoSteve]For those who side with Fittysix and Mueller, remember this: A pitch that is not struck at and not in the strike zone is a ball.

Excellent. I got one of those things too.

"AN IDIOT WHO LEAVES HIS BAT TO BUNT at our near the plate IS ASSUMED TO BE STRIKING THE BASEBALL ....

Fed 7.2.1B "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 hit the ball."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Fed 7.2.1B "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 hit the ball."

Bob, I know I have seen it somewhere, but isn't there an OBR version of this statement? I scoured my rule book looking for it and can't find it. Perhaps you can tell me exactly where I've seen this interpretation. Is it in a manual somewhere?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Bob, I know I have seen it somewhere, but isn't there an OBR version of this statement? I scoured my rule book looking for it and can't find it. Perhaps you can tell me exactly where I've seen this interpretation. Is it in a manual somewhere?

Can someone please answer this question? It's bugging me. I'm sure I've seen it in OBR somewhere but I just can't find it.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Can someone please answer this question? It's bugging me. I'm sure I've seen it in OBR somewhere but I just can't find it.

This should be sufficient:

OBR 2.00

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which -

(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

This should be sufficient:

OBR 2.00

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which -

(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

I just seem to recall reading actual wording about merely holding the bat in the strike zone not being an attempt in something other than FED, i.e., OBR.

LSMFT

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I just seem to recall reading actual wording about merely holding the bat in the strike zone not being an attempt in something other than FED, i.e., OBR.

LSMFT

Steve,


I know you worked some LL games last year and you might have read what you're talking about in "The Right Call."


“The Right Call” Casebook -- Comment: The key words are “intentionally met with the bat.” Comment: If no attempt is made to make contact with a ball outside the strike zone while in the bunting stance, it should be called a ball. An effort must be made to intentionally meet the ball with the bat.


Tim.

[Rcichon]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

......clipped.........LSMFT

I know what that stands for [I feel older now]! My grandfather smoke those for 65-70 years. Quit when he was 82. Not one lung problem ever.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

LSMFT

I was going to ask what this meant. Then I goggled it. Seems there are two meanings. You must have meant the first one. The second one may earn you a slap in the face.

[Don Mueller]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins][QUOTE=fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

For those who side with Fittysix and Mueller, remember this: A pitch that is not struck at and not in the strike zone is a ball.

Fed 7.2.1B "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 hit the ball."

Thanks Bob,

For those who have been denegrating my posts please reread posts 8 and 11 without prejudice and tell me how I've bent, misapplied or made up additional rules relative to this topic.
My interps on the above rule were right on, if I do say so myself.
I think some on this forum are so prejudice it blinds them from understanding basic principles of a post.
I wonder if those who prejudge posts also prejudge plays on the field?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Thanks Bob,

For those who have been denegrating my posts please reread posts 8 and 11 without prejudice and tell me how I've bent, misapplied or made up additional rules relative to this topic.
My interps on the above rule were right on, if I do say so myself.
I think some on this forum are so prejudice it blinds them from understanding basic principles of a post.
I wonder if those who prejudge posts also prejudge plays on the field?

The rule:

Fed 7.2.1B "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 hit the ball."

From Post 8

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

In other words, if the batter shows zero attempt to pull back, I'll probably see an attempt.

From Post 11

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

All I'm saying is that I rarely see a batter who is too lazy to pull the bat back also be able to remain motionless.

What you're saying is you're going to disregard the part of the rule that states, "The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to hit the ball" and you're going to rule - no, wait... judge this as an attempt. I think we all hear you loud and clear.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The rule:


From Post 8


From Post 11


What you're saying is you're going to disregard the part of the rule that states, "The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to hit the ball" and you're going to rule - no, wait... judge this as an attempt. I think we all hear you loud and clear.

That would appear to be correct, walt.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The rule:


From Post 8

Are you incapable of putting this statement in context with the rest of the post?

Originally Posted by waltjp

From Post 11


What you're saying is you're going to disregard the part of the rule that states, "The mere holding of the bat in the strike zone is not an attempt to hit the ball"

Show me one statement in context that says that.

Originally Posted by waltjp

and you're going to rule - no, wait... judge this as an attempt. I think we all hear you loud and clear.

Either you have a severe problem with comprehension and understanding the written word or you're so prejudice you can't read straight.
which is it?

[NFump]

Nah, he got it right. You're trying to get away with calling it "judgement". Nice try.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Either you have a severe problem with comprehension and understanding the written word or you're so prejudice you can't read straight.
which is it?

Okay, Don. I'll play along. Let's suspend reality for a moment and assume that my comprehension skills are deficient. Go ahead and put your statements in terms that I can understand.

Make it succinct, because between what you've written in this thread and what you've said in the OBS thread you don't appear to have a lot of credibility.