Bunt
 

I Thought I Read Somewhere On An Umpires Forum. 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?

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;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip.

If you read The Right Call, LL's so-called casebook, you'll see the same thing. The wording is not confusing at all. Simply squaring to bunt and holding the bat motionless over the plate is not an attempt to bunt, strike at, or hit the ball. If the pitch is outside the strike zone, it should be called a ball.

It is correct. But capitalizing the first letter of every word is not correct. It is Difficult To Read.

WOW hes been reading from my book!!

WelcoMe tO oUR GRouP, fleMMer

aCe

No, he hasn't learned how to randomly capitalize entire words yet.:)

As everyone has said, yes this is correct.

However, Be Aware, it is very difficult to hold the bat motionless while showing bunt.
From my perspective there is absolutely no reason for the batter to leave the bat out over the plate if he has no intention at striking the ball. If the batter is making no attempt at pulling the bat back on an apparent 'ball' then he better not twitch, lean or sway any direction but back or else I'm striking it.
In other words, if the batter shows zero attempt to pull back, I'll probably see an attempt.

So, you don't like the ruling and are searching for a way to get around it.

yes but least IM in rehab :D

Whose ruling are you referring? I've made no judgements on others rulings realtive to bunts and strikes.

I said it is very difficult to remain motionless while showing bunt. The batters eyes are following the pitch and it's difficult for the body not to sway a bit towards the pitch. It's got nothing to do with the rule, I understand it and have no problem with it. My rulings(which I generally like) relative to this rule are judgement calls. If the batter is making any attempt at all to pull back then I know there is no intent to strike the ball. If the batter stays motionless there is apparently no intent. If there is ANY movement forward or toward the ball then I have intent.
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.

there you go mr Don--i like that approach get more strikes get closer to gameover time!

mr Tim sadly there doesnt seem tobe a sarcasm smiley i canuse if that tells you anything!

Come on Larry, quit misspelling words on purpose and going from one extreme to the other with the capitals thing. I liked you better when you were capitalizing every other word. Here is the sarcasm smiley you need. Go advanced or quote someone and it is in the smilies::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Exactly which rule are you referring to that is not being followed?

Or are you just being a RAT and questioning judgement calls?

A RAT in umps clothing. I think that puts you well beyond smitty and troll

No, I think he's questioning your willingness to bend the rules as you see fit.

I'm on with this interp. Placing the bat over the plate..

1) Trying to adjust the D (as in feint and hit) - good baseball.
2) Trying to distract F1/F2 - guess who else gets distracted, PU, you think this is good?

If you have your bat anywhere the pitch when it comes in, Steeeeeerikorino.

Well, since the bat can't disappear, it must be "anywhere". So, every pitch is a strike. I like it. Of course, we'll have to think of a name to call this game, because "baseball" is already taken.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by fitump56
I'm on with this interp. Placing the bat over the plate..

1) Trying to adjust the D (as in feint and hit) - good baseball.
2) Trying to distract F1/F2 - guess who else gets distracted, PU, you think this is good?

If you have your bat anywhere near the pitch when it comes in, Steeeeeerikorino.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Go to bed. Surely you have better things to do than nitpik my posts.

Indeed. See here: http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...120#post430120

Isn't doing this ridiculously time-consuming as well? :confused:

OK, I'm still up. I'll just finish where Bob left off. :)

BTW, how far (close?) is "anywhere near"? If the bat is 6" away, do we strike the pitch? So 2.00 definition of a strike is moot here?

Wow! My games are all gonna be less than hour now with this and Mueller's Rules of Unofficial "Baseball!" :rolleyes:

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.

That is all you need to remember.

Silly, Steve, you're forgetting that that is correct in OBR and not UOBR, hich seems to be the code f56 and Mueller are following.

In other words, if the batter follows the rules, you won't.

When every batter does, he will.

Your turn.

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 ....

[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.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?

[QUOTE=bob jenkins][QUOTE=fitump56]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?

[quote=bob jenkins][quote=fitump56]So if B vertically raises his bat to, let's say, shoulder height on a an inside drop curve, that breaks slightly off the plate but well below his bat, he gets a "Ball"? :eek: I guess so. :confused:

What if he holds the bat on the same pitch, outside the strike zone, again not "to" the ball, because it is outside the strike zone, he gets a "Ball"? :D

How much bat = bat? All, part the tip end?

Ill defined rules of OBR, which ought to be tossed into the garbage and totally rewritten anyway, need common sense interps. Here's mine.

"AN IDIOT WHO LEAVES HIS BAT TO BUNT at our near the plate IS ASSUMED TO BE STRIKING THE BASEBALL ....as far as I am concerned. Since I have nor will never see a B who holds a bat completely still and in accordance with above BS rule, I got strikes to call.

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.

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


Show me one statement in context that says that.

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?

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

[QUOTE=fitump56][quote=bob jenkins]:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not as far as I'm concerned, that's for sure. For one thing, I actually know what the definition of a bunt is--and it's different from a swing. Unless he's actually making an attempt to push the bat forward when the ball passes the bat, I've got a ball and not a strike. That, in fact, is the ruling, and not the UOBR interpretation some here seem to believe.

Of course, we all know what happens when we try to @ssume...

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.

Forward is it? Not what the rule says, the rule says "at" the ball. So you would not call a strike if B drops or raises his bat vertically with no forward push if the ball is above or below his bat, in an obvious attempt to bunt? I guess not. :eek:

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.

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.

It's obvious you don't even know the definition of the word "push" now. :rolleyes:

When you come to an exit door that says "push," do you yank real hard and wonder why it won't open? :rolleyes:

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;

[QUOTE=UMP25][QUOTE=fitump56]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?

I'll be the first. No movement, no attempt. It's pretty cut and dry, Don.


Tim.

Mr. Mueller,

Done it once this year. Did it twice last year.

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

Me, because I've done the very same thing more than once and NEVER got much guff from it after I explained succinctly why I didn't rule it a strike.

[QUOTE=Don Mueller][QUOTE=UMP25]Ball. No he didn't (optional addition).

Who would say, "He didn't make an offer, but I'm calling it a strike." (and no, I don't mean who would say that literally)

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.

Alright, I'll buy that. That may have been where I saw it. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Don Mueller][QUOTE=UMP25]
Why on earth would you NOT call this pitch a ball ??? I assume you are implying that the 1" means something, as you cited it twice..... :rolleyes: I prefer to look for pitches that are strikes, or that are offered to by the batter, than to create my own. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to realize others on this board were correct. **click**

(**click** in memory of LMan)

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.

I used to smoke...huhhhhhh...four packs a day...huhhhhhhhh...but since they took out one of my lungs...huhhhhhhhhhhhh...I've cut my smoking in half!:D

Seriously, I feel 100% better since quitting smoking several years back.

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

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

Originally Posted by fitump56
Forward is it? Not what the rule says, the rule says "at" the ball. So you would not call a strike if B drops or raises his bat vertically with no forward push if the ball is above or below his bat, in an obvious attempt to bunt? I guess not. :eek:
You missed the difference between forward and verical motions, later. :p

Originally Posted by fitump56
batter makes no offer,

Correct.

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

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by fitump56
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?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Answer is in following the thread.

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.:D

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.
:D Ace

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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".

[QUOTE]You are comparing Apples / Oranges

From the OP which IMO is lost in your analysis

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

My question
Your response #52


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.


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.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]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?

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.
:rolleyes: