Bunt

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fitump56

I don't know, who? One of your "Smitties"?

Apparently you and Don would, so the answer to the specific question is "Yes."

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Apparently you and Don would, so the answer to the specific question is "Yes."

Bob,

I appreciate your opinions, knowledge and experience, but I have a small problem here.

In my last question, yes I would strike it for two reasons
1. I like strikes
2. It's the expected call if the ball misses the bat by an inch or two.
I don't think too many players have good enough hand eye coordination to know the ball was going to miss the bat by one inch. Therefore he expected to make contact. I think no explanation is required on a strike call, a ball call requires a review of the rules to the defensive team. Despite one of the posts, I think a price will be paid for a ball call.

My detractors on this thread keep quoting the rule and seem to be saying that if you don't call this by the letter of the law it's a terrrible thing and you (meaning me, then become a terrible umpire and even a troll) If you and the others were strict constructionsists in all phases of even balls and strikes it would have more credibility, however when it comes to balls and strikes, I don't think any of you are close to being strict by the rules kind of guys.

For example:
1. Curve ball at the knees as it enters the zone, breaks hard and ends up in dirt. "Ball" everytime. Even though it is a rule book strike

2. F2 sets up inside, pitch hits outside corner as F2 reaches across. Most on this board have said they "ball" this pitch because it appears to the masses to be a ball. It is however a rule book strike.

3. F2 sets up outside third expecting curve, pitch comes in on inside corner fastball, F2 expecting curve is crossed up and misses the pitch. Most, I think even you have said you would "ball" it if the F2 misses it even though it is a rule book strike.

In ex. 1 defense did nothing 'wrong' in 2 and 3 they've done nothing wrong but slightly out of the ordinary and the rule book ball and strike rules were ignored. In this sitch the batter is doing something out of the ordinary and I'll ding him if i can.
You guys are all willing to ignore the rules and give up strikes to make yourselves look good and you're calling me the troll because I'm getting one back.
I'm not condemning these calls, it's the way I manage the game as well. I'm only pointing out the apparent hypocrisy.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I don't think too many players have good enough hand eye coordination to know the ball was going to miss the bat by one inch. Therefore he expected to make contact.

last try:

"expected to make contact" = "attempt" = "strike."

That's different from your play in which is was a given that there was no attempt.

If you change the play, you (might) change the results.

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.

Yes, I'm sure. I try very hard not to have a FYC in any game I do. I don't think it has a place in any (or more than the 1 in a thousand) amateur game.

Your other examples are not "looking FOR a desired outcome".

[Don Mueller]

My question

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Question.

Obvious sac situation, batter squares early, bat across the plate and at the very top of strike zone. F1 delivers, pitch is 1" above the bat and out of the zone, batter makes no offer, no movement, ball misses bat by 1".
Who's going to be the first brave soul to step up and say they're balling this pitch?

Your response #52

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No he didn't

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"expected to make contact" = "attempt" = "strike."

That's different from your play in which is was a given that there was no attempt.

If you change the play, you (might) change the results.

I never changed the play. I simply said I don't believe a kid, holding the bat motionless and the ball missing by 1", has the hand/eye coordination needed to know there was not going to be contact. I strike it because of intent.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, I'm sure. I try very hard not to have a FYC in any game I do. I don't think it has a place in any (or more than the 1 in a thousand) amateur game.

Your other examples are not "looking FOR a desired outcome".

I don't think my example is a FYC. I specifically said a ball and a half outside not nose to toes.
Let's forget about a ball and a half.
In this situation if it's a borderline pitch is the call going for or against the batter?

You have conveniently failed to address why the 3 examples of failing to call strikes according to the rules is OK but taking any liberty with the bunt rule is a mortal sin.