Bunt

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

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.

I don't need to google it (or goggle it either) to figure what the second one was.

The first of course:

Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco

or, "smoke, smoke, smoke, until you have no "Chestafeel."

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I don't need to google it (or goggle it either) to figure what the second one was.

The first of course:

Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco

or, "smoke, smoke, smoke, until you have no "Chestafeel."

My dad told me LSMFT meant: "Lord, Save Me from Truman." Harry, that is.
Ace

[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

[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."

[PeteBooth]

Read Garth's, Rich Ives, Bob Jenkins and TEES response.

They gave you the correct answer. You are relatively new so please come back with questions because there are those who will do their best to give you the correct response.

However, you must also do your "due diligence" as well. You said LL and this EXACT ruling is verbatim from LL's book the "Right Call" so a little reading would not hurt.

NOTE: - For the most part you will only see players holding the bat over the plate in the "rug-rat" divisions of baseball. It's primary use is to distract F1. When the players reach shaven age this tactic goes away or B1 better get ready "to hit the deck"

Pete Booth

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

You said quite clearly that ANY movement of the bat will get a strike call from you, where others have also stated quite clearly that you are simply making up your own rules if that is your ruling.

[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!!

[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.

[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".

[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

[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.

[Don Mueller]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

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.

Pete,
I didn't mean to get off track, the sitch I proposed was only to show that at times we all look for a desired outcome and at times it affects our call.
If everyone is insightful enough to accept that premise there is no need to debate a specific situation.

Here it is in a nutshell:

We all take liberties with the strikezone so why is it so bad to take liberties with the bunt strike?
Isn't it hypocritical to ignore a strike in one situation and then call someone a troll for taking a strike in a different situation?

[Rcichon]

I mostly call 17u ball for Little League. There, I was taught that the kid has to offer. Meaning [for me] he has to attempt to track the ball with the bat in an attempt to hit it. Simply leaving it out over the plate is never offering for me. His intent is clear either way; he is either not trying to hit or by tracking the ball with the bat, he is trying to hit. I really don't care why he left the bat out over the plate.

Rats know this. I have not had any chirping when making this call either way. Not that I care what rats do in a game but I understand I get more chirping if I blow calls.

I'd wager three game payments that you get more chirping on this than I do.