![]() |
bat in strike zone
I have tried for days to find the rule in Fed book that holding the bat over the plate doesn't constitute a strike if the pitch isn't in the strike zone.
Can anyone provide the rule number? I know I have seen it in writing. |
btdt,
Fed Case Play 7.2.1B - last sentence. JM |
Thank you
|
It is only a strike in softball (as of this year, I believe).
|
Quote:
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Joh...C10038214.jpeg |
Quote:
|
so on a bunt its not a strike if their bat is out over the zone and the ball isnt a strike?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Hmmm,
Quote:
You have confused me a little. Regards, |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I am quoting out of order....
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
~Sigh~
Quote:
We can't make it anymore simple. In baseball simply holding the bat over the plate does not indicate an attempt. There has to be clear movement of the bat to attempt to hit the ball for it to be called a strike. Location of the pitch can make it a strike -- simply holding the bat cannot. Don't make up rules. |
Re: ~Sigh~
Quote:
I am trying to counter (what I perceive to be) the idea that holding the bat in the zone, and not moving, is a ball (when the pitch is out of the strike zone). Possible play: If the player holds the bat in the zone (anywhere, the middle or the edges), and the does not move the bat after the initial placement, and the pitch comes close to, and in such a way that the it appears the player need not move the bat to make the bunt. I feel that a strike should be called, as in my judgment an attempt has been made. Quote:
|
"Possible play: If the player holds the bat in the zone (anywhere, the middle or the edges), and the does not move the bat after the initial placement, and the pitch comes close to, and in such a way that the it appears the player need not move the bat to make the bunt."
You are joking right. Is this like from the King James version of interpretations? Ok, you didn't make up a rule but you have really butchered an interpretation. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I Quote:
|
Quote:
OBR Section 2 A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—There, now did you see your statement anywhere in the rules listed? I didn't think so and that means you are making up rules! That is unless you are officiating fast pitch softball, then you are absolutely correct as of 2008. You are correct in saying that we determine what an offer is but you must have an offer to determine one. Holding the bat motionless in the zone does not constitute an offer in baseball under any circumstances. Also, the learned umpires that were trying to guide you have over 150 years experience combined. One of them has over 4000 games logged officiating all three of the rule sets you see above including MiLB. It would behoove you to listen to these people. |
Nice Work
Quote:
The part in bold is not a strike, it is a ball, and I believe you know it to be true. The part in red is directly opposite of what is true. Stop trying so hard to make a wrong a right. Now if the pitch is in the strike zone, I'm with you and just about everyone else. |
Quote:
|
Verbalizing the Count
Quote:
The guy needed info. Glad to provide it. :D |
Good post Ozzy, It's amazing how those defenitions always have such good info in them.;)
|
Reply 1 of 2
Quote:
Quote:
But really looking at what you have said in this thread, you have not stated an answer, put forth a question or asked an opinion. All you have done is hurled insults at someone who is trying to better themselves. Sounds similar to another group of people in this world that I know. |
Reply 2 of 2
Quote:
SECTION 8: Bunt A bunt is a fair ball in which the batter does not swing to hit the ball, but holds the bat in the path of the ball to tap it slowly to the infield. (the rest is irrelevant to this discussion). I see nothing in this rule stating that the bat need be moving to be considered a bunt, only that it be held. I am also aware that the rules also do not state that an attempted bunt is a strike. So to me would indicate that to be able to call an attempted bunt a strike, holding the bat in the path of the ball would have to be defined then as striking at the ball. |
Quote:
Thus we are left with the definition of a strike when that does not ocurr. No need to repost that. Your are clearly wrong in your interpretation. Tell me, is this interpretation held by all the paid umpires of the Bloomington Athletic Association, the "largest volunteer organization in America?" (Wouldn't that be a contradiction?) |
Stop trying
Quote:
Provide an example of an attempted bunt attempt that is not called a strike. I threw the ball. You had time to move the bat out of the way. The ball hits your bat on the knob of the handle outside the strike zone. Ball or strike? |
Reply 3 of 2 (Forgot something)
Quote:
|
Trick Question
Quote:
|
Quote:
I cannot tell you what the interpretation of every umpire in BAA is because, I am not in their head, and until I read this thread it was not an event that had crossed my mind. |
Quote:
Finis |
GF, you don't know all the people who have answered your question so far, so perhaps you're having trouble gauging their credibility. All I'll say about that issue is: when it's you against the world, you might be right but that's not the way to bet.
Second, I will offer that professional umpires are instructed to watch and see whether the batter "offers at the pitch." They are taught that merely holding the bat still does not constitute offering at a pitch. So in the case under discussion, with the pitch out of the zone, the proper call would be: "Ball," or better yet, "No, he didn't go!" |
Quote:
If B1 is holding the bat (motionless) "in the zone" and the ball passes the plate "out of the zone" then I don't see how the pitch could be anything but a ball. |
Quote:
That seems contradictory. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21pm. |