Bunt Attempt

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Unless I'm missing it, the rules book (despite a rules citation in the casebook) does not directly address this. However, the last part of 7.2.1 Situation B of the 2010 casebook states,
"...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 bunt. (10-1-4a)"

If it happened as you stated, you may have a point. However, in the end it does come down to umpire judgement.

The rules don't have it, but you posted the rule that has it. Interesting oxymoron.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by yawetag

The rules don't have it, but you posted the rule that has it. Interesting oxymoron.

The rules do have it, just not in those words. Naturally, the rules do not define what is NOT a strike; but 7-2-1 defines what is:

ART. 1 . . . A strike is charged to the batter when:
a. a pitch enters any part of the strike zone in flight and is not struck at;
b. a pitch is struck at and missed (even if the pitch touches the batter);
c. a pitch becomes a foul when the batter has less than two strikes;
d. a pitch becomes a foul tip (even on third strike) or a foul from an attempted
bunt;
e. a batter delays (6-2-4d-1 and 7-3-1); or
f. a batted ball contacts the batter in the batter’s box (foul ball).

It follows from (b) that in the case of a bunt the pitch must be "struck at," which entails the case book ruling that merely holding the bat over the plate does not constitute a strike.

Q.E.D.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by yawetag

The rules don't have it, but you posted the rule that has it. Interesting oxymoron.

No. I posted the case from the casebook ... not a rule from the rules book.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

No. I posted the case from the casebook ... not a rule from the rules book.

But the rule listed in the casebook DOES address the situation.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But the rule listed in the casebook DOES address the situation.

I disagree with regard to squaring to bunt. If it were not for the casebook, this situation would be very open to wide interpretation.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

I disagree with regard to squaring to bunt. If it were not for the casebook, this situation would be very open to wide interpretation.

I certainly hope it would not. Fed uses the case book, Fed, OBR & NCAA use AR's. All use clinics and rule interp. meetings. This is pretty basic stuff and should not be loosely interpreted.

[harmbu]

A couple of reasons that I didn't protest the misapplication of the rule:

1. Here in Missouri, protests must be handled on-site. The protesting coach has to say he is protesting. Both teams must leave the field while the protesting coach has ten minutes to find in the rule or case book why the umpire misapplied the rule. Since he said "in my opinion", I felt that he was going to change that to "in my judgement" when he realized that he was wrong.

2. I had heard a story of this same umpire ejecting a coach earlier in the season when the coach agrued the misapplication of the rule. I didn't want to take that chance.

I realize these are not good reasons to follow the procedures placed before us, but it was the decision that I made.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by harmbu

2. I had heard a story of this same umpire ejecting a coach earlier in the season when the coach agrued the misapplication of the rule. I didn't want to take that chance.

I would not continue assigning an umpire who did this.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

No. I posted the case from the casebook ... not a rule from the rules book.

The Case Book is effectively part of the Rules Book.