Bunt

[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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.

Simply put:

It is very difficult to remain motionless when squared to bunt.
If there is any movement forward or toward the ball I will strike it.
The benefit of doubt will certainly be in favor of F1.
If the batter makes no attempt to pull back I will look hard for an attempt.
You may not like that attitude but it is within the rules.
My op was a heads up to flemmer (I figured he was a coach) and other coaches that to teach kids to keep the bat over the plate, for whatever reason, may not be a good idea.
I was not trying to talk you out of giving up strikes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

If the batter makes no attempt to pull back I will look hard for an attempt.

I disagree with this statement. (Okay, to be clear, I don't disagree that Don does it; I disagree that he, or any umpire, should do it).

An umpire needn't "look hard" for an attempt. He just needs to watch the actions and judge accordingly.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree with this statement. (Okay, to be clear, I don't disagree that Don does it; I disagree that he, or any umpire, should do it).

An umpire needn't "look hard" for an attempt. He just needs to watch the actions and judge accordingly.

I suppose "looking hard" at any call is an indecency? Or just this one. How about looking hard at all of them?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fitump56

I suppose "looking hard" at any call is an indecency? Or just this one. How about looking hard at all of them?

An umpire should "look hard" AT all the calls, I agree.

He shouldn't look hard FOR any (desired) outcome

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

He shouldn't look hard FOR any (desired) outcome

You sure?

Have you ever had a batter that's been giving you grief, maybe needs an attitude adjustment and you look a little harder for strikes? Maybe give an extra ball or ball and a half on the outside. Isn't that looking for a desired outcome?
Let's be totally honest.
Kid's on the edge of being tossed, 2 strikes, pitch comes in a ball and a half outside your normal zone. Don't tell me your not ringing him up.
You, I and everyone else on the board is praying for him to either cross the line or a pitch anywhere close to ring him up.
That's looking for a desired outcome.
Expanding the strike zone is not a penalty for any rules infraction and when we do it we 'are making up our own rules' to paraphrase some who are accusing me of such.
We all draw our lines somewhere south of the rulebook and are all guilty of essentially the same thing. Let's not be hypocrites just because my line is drawn a little different than yours.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

You sure?

Have you ever had a batter that's been giving you grief, maybe needs an attitude adjustment and you look a little harder for strikes? Maybe give an extra ball or ball and a half on the outside. Isn't that looking for a desired outcome?
Let's be totally honest.

You are comparing Apples / Oranges

From the OP which IMO is lost in your analysis

In LL Rules If The Batter Is Holding The Bat Showing A Bunt As The Pitcher Has Thrown The Ball And Its A Pitch Away From The Strike Zone And The Batter Made No Attempt To Pull Away Or An Attempt At The Ball, Then It Is Not A Strike. Yes I Was Confused. Is This Correct?

Since you said Let's be totally honest For the most part you will only see the tactic mentioned in the OP in the young ages of LL.

You are not going to give some 8 - 10 yr. old kid an FYC call.

I will admit I have "sent messages" but it was in adult leagues who understood this and it was only done once in the early stages of the game. "Sending a message" is done as an altenative to tossing but is non applicable in dealing with this thread.

IMO, we need to stay "on track" with the OP who asked a SPECIFIC question which was answered properly by Garth, TEE, Rich Ives and Bob.

Personally (as if anybody cares) teaching players to simply hold the bat over home plate to distract F1 is doing a dis-service to that particular player and as he grows up will "pay for it". It is not teaching him anything but That is not what the rules states.

Heck if we are going to make up rules I wish there was one for coaching stupidity meaning we can call outs "on principle" but we can't if we are doing our job. We all like outs as they are our friends but we have to get those outs in accordance with the rules.

Pete Booth

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Simply put:

It is very difficult to remain motionless when squared to bunt.
If there is any movement forward or toward the ball I will strike it.
The benefit of doubt will certainly be in favor of F1.
If the batter makes no attempt to pull back I will look hard for an attempt.
You may not like that attitude but it is within the rules.
My op was a heads up to flemmer (I figured he was a coach) and other coaches that to teach kids to keep the bat over the plate, for whatever reason, may not be a good idea.
I was not trying to talk you out of giving up strikes.

Thanks Don. That's exactly what I thought. My comprehension skills appear to be just fine.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Simply put:

It is very difficult to remain motionless when squared to bunt.
If there is any movement forward or toward the ball I will strike it.
The benefit of doubt will certainly be in favor of F1.
If the batter makes no attempt to pull back I will look hard for an attempt.
You may not like that attitude but it is within the rules.
My op was a heads up to flemmer (I figured he was a coach) and other coaches that to teach kids to keep the bat over the plate, for whatever reason, may not be a good idea.

If this is not copyrighted, I'm writing it down for future regurgitation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Simply put:

It is very difficult to remain motionless when squared to bunt.

Ok, I'll bite. Where exactly does it say the batter must remain motionless? I can't seem to find that.

I can't believe this is a 5-page topic. My 7-year old girl gets this rule.

If you don't try to hit the ball, it's not an attempt. Deciding on your own that the batter must somehow become inhumanly immobile (something you admit is very hard to do) is simply bending the rules to fit your own warped ideas on what the rules were intended to.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

JEEzus Donny mr Mbcrowder is right! where is the motionles part of '"struck at??" hes gota attempt to hit the dadgum pitch

keep up the rationilzations though mr Don they are funny!!