Bunt question

buckweat · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 24, 2002, 12:56am

Question about bunts.

On a different BB, I've had a disagreement with another participant. The main bone of contention is what constitutes an attempt.

His quote on that is:

"The batter must actually and deliberately move the bat toward the ball, for it to correctly be called an attempt."

Mine is:

"... the way I interpret it is, the bat might be moving up, down, back, forward or just standing still. If in the umpire's judgement, the batter was attempting to make the bat touch the ball, its a strike."

Please understand that there is more going on in the communications, but the above seems to be the root of the disagreement.

Please comment.

etbaseball · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 24, 2002, 03:48am

buckweat -

Years ago when I was coaching baseball I taught players how to bunt, just like how I was taught 50 years ago. Ball players who know how to bunt, the correct way, are taught to 'catch' the ball with the bat. This method usually will have the bat held losely in the hand waiting for, but never moving at, the ball. The bat should absorb the ball and when it does it usually travels backwards an inch or two.
Because a bat doesn't move towards the ball, doesn't mean the batter wasn't trying to strike at/make contact with the pitch.

With that said, as an official I always 'judge'... "did the batter offer (make an attempt) at the pitch." When I think he did make an attempt I respond with pointing with my left hand while announcing loudly .... "YES! THAT'S AN ATTEMPT."

Therefore, I agree with you!

[Edited by etbaseball on Mar 24th, 2002 at 02:50 AM]

Roger Greene · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 24, 2002, 09:15am

The mere holding of the bat, in and of itself, in the strike zone is NOT an attempt to bunt.

There must be some attempt by the batter to make contact with the ball. That attempt might not involve moving the bat toward the ball, but the umpire must judge that the batter was attempting to make contact to declare a strike on a pitch delivered out of the strike zone.

Roger Greene

#4 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 24, 2002, 02:05pm

I'm with Roger, holding the bat in the zone is not in and of itself a strike. Even if you are "catching the ball" you have to move the bat where the ball is. That action is what most umps, including myself, consider moving toward the ball.

buckweat · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 24, 2002, 03:46pm

You all seem to be agreeing with me more than you might think.

What you seem to be saying is, you see the "play", make a "judgement" about it and then make the "call".

Having talked about this at length many times with many umpires, its always the same conclusion that's reached. "There is no absolute in a judgement call", hence the term "judgement".

On two calls in the same game that might look to the player, fan or coach as the same "play", there could be 100 things different about them. The play may appear to be the same, but the situation could be entirely different, creating a different result.

I've always tried to be very generous on judgement calls because I've been there and done that and its a lot harder than anyone who hasn't done it for real might believe. We're talking about something that happens in literally hundredths of a second with a decision made and rendered in the same amount of time.

To tell the truth, I quit umpiring because I never got the hang of the rapid "changing of gears".

I tended to focus on the immediate situation by concentrating on the pitcher, making sure he delivered the ball properly, then moved focus to calling the pitch. I was so intent on trying to call the pitch correctly, I was often just guessing about what else was going on. I honestly could not make a "sure" call on a bunt attempt on a pitch that was low and away. Heck, I was concentrating on the pitch call and really could only tell about the attempt by what it looked like when I got around to focusing on that.

In other words, I was a lousy ump with no confidence that I was making the right judgement, let alone applying the right rule to it!

I have nothing but respect for any umpire that has lasted long enough to start calling HS games! They have spent a whole lot of time on the big field, by themselves, with unknowledgeable coaches, players and fans second guessing every single call!

I'm glad I only keep score now and "work" for the ump, rather than against him.

danvers · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 26, 2002, 03:09pm

It seems to me that "showing the bunt," "squaring for the bunt," or preparing in some manner to put down a bunt shows the batter's intent through a physical commitment--somewhat like a checked swing.... In this case, however, the batter has the opportunity to clearly back off and show his lack of commitment by pulling back before the pitch arrives.

~~Dan

Rich Ives · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 26, 2002, 03:31pm

It's just an alternate battiing stance. Taking a 'normal' stance is not considered an attempt or intent, so why do you feel taking a bunting stance is?

senior · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 26, 2002, 08:32pm

danvers:

We're trying to help here....do you understand the stance has absolutely no effect on the "attempt" part of the rule.

Please believe us....we wouldn't try to con you.

Senior

danvers · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 26, 2002, 11:37pm

Having spent countless hours at the keyboard engaging in dialogues and diatribes dealing with my vocation, I've always sworn that I would keep my avocation on the screen and not the keyboard, that I would simply lurk, enjoy, and hopefully learn. But alas and alack... I got snowed in, I got bored, I drank a beer, I put my fat fingers on the danged keyboard, I used careless words, and here we are.

Rich, I agree that it's an alternate batting stance, but I don't agree with it being "*just* an alternate batting stance." For me, it's different because both the means and the end are distinct from what we find with the "normal" stance and the pitch that is swung at for a hit. If a bunt is, by definition, a batted ball that's "not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat," and you stick your bat out over the plate and make no attempt to pull it back and show me that you're not commited, I'm going to ring you up for hoping that the ball would meet the bat.

Senior, I'm stubborn and opinionated, but I'm always glad to accept help, even from a con ;-) What rule are you referring to? I'm not sure which one refers to an "attempt."

BlueGhost_Scout · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 27, 2002, 02:41am

Any time a batter attempts to hit a ball and misses it, it is a strike, regardless where the bat or the ball start or finish. We've all seen batters miss a pitch by two feet; hi, low, early, late. If a batter has his bat moving toward where the ball might possibbly be, regardless how close the bat gets to the ball, in my judgement, he is trying to hit the ball or fool me. Either way it's a strike.

My call is usually a fairly loud and firm 'Yes he did' and a clear strike sign. If I'm lucky it is in the strike zone and we have a called strike, and I will call a firm 'Striiike, (short pause) Called.' It takes the guess work out of it and lets both sides know why it is a strike. On the rare occasion where somone disagrees with my judgement by saying 'I / he was trying to pull it back / down' my response is normally 'Not fast / far enough.'

Location alone means nothing. Last week I had a batter clearly pull the bat back that was slightly over his head. The coach was all over him because it was a sacrifice with a runner moving from 2nd to 3rd. Coach wanted that ball bunted at all cost. Runner was safe at third and I called a ball. But if he was a little slower in his pull back, I would have gladly obliged the coach with a strike.

Putting the bat on the ball durring a bunt attempt is much easier than a swing. The batter has an advantage. I'm not likely to split hairs in the batters favor.

I did Little League for 10+ years (great years)and some coach was always trying to get the kids to spook the pitcher / catcher by putting the bat out there and hoping for a walk / pass ball / error. That's why you see it more on a 3 and 0 count. 'Coach, the bat was just as close to the ball as his last swing' always works. You have to be a little more sensitive to the batters feelings in LL, but I'm not too concerned about the coach. If I a sure the coach is coaching that way, between innings I will let him know I know.

In my judgement, he at least started an attempt. Did he make my judgement believe he seriously changed his mind AND was this action early enough to get the bat reasonably away from the ball.

Rich Ives · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 27, 2002, 09:04am

danvers and BlueGhost_Scout.

The senior folks have been trying to get you the message. The message is:

2.00 Bunt: ". . . intentionally met . ."

2.00 Strike (a): "is struck at by the batter and missed."

The rules require an overt act by the batter. Just standing there holding the bat motionless is not an overt act. There must be a deliberate attempt to contact the ball.

danvers · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 27, 2002, 10:43am

2.00 Bunt: "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met.. ."

2.00 Strike (a): "is struck at by the batter and is missed."

A bunt is, by definition, "not swung at," and a strike, within the limits of 2.00 (a), "is struck at." The overt act of bunting, then, can not be an act of striking or swinging, so it has to be a matter of placing. Subsequently, if the batter places the bat in a location where it can (with proper incantation and alignment of planets) meet the ball, I consider that an overt act. If there's not a second overt act of removing the bat from the area of placement, I consider it a deliberate attempt to meet the pitch.

~~Dan

Rich Ives · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 27, 2002, 11:38am

You are wrong.

Re-read the part in BUNT about it being intentionally met. This does not include the alignment of the planets. What's so hard about this?

bob jenkins · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 27, 2002, 11:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by danvers
2.00 Bunt: "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met.. ."

2.00 Strike (a): "is struck at by the batter and is missed."

A bunt is, by definition, "not swung at," and a strike, within the limits of 2.00 (a), "is struck at." The overt act of bunting, then, can not be an act of striking or swinging, so it has to be a matter of placing. Subsequently, if the batter places the bat in a location where it can (with proper incantation and alignment of planets) meet the ball, I consider that an overt act. If there's not a second overt act of removing the bat from the area of placement, I consider it a deliberate attempt to meet the pitch.

~~Dan

Apparently, then, you allow a batter to "undo a swing?"

If not, then the first movement (just turning and placing the bat in the strike zone) can't (in general) be an attempt.

The FED has specific language that just turning into a bunting position is not an attempt. The rule is the same at all levels.

#15 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 27, 2002, 08:20pm

You say you have done or still do LL, so here a quote from LL's Case book called " THE RIGHT CALL."
Comment one: The key words are INTENTIONALLY MET WITH THE BAT.
Comment Two: If no attempt is made to make contact with a ball outside the strikezone while in the bunting stance, it should be called a ball. An effort must be made to intentionally meet the ball with bat.