Bunt Attempt

[harmbu]

This is an honest question. I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I just want to know how this should have gone.

FED--Batter squares to bunt and the pitch is in on him and hits him. PU calls time and awards the batter first base. The defensive coach comes out saying, "He didn't pull his bat back. That is a strike." PU and BU got together, and after discussion, plate umpire calls the batter back and says that it is a strike. I (offensive coach) go out and here is what was discussed.

Me: Why does he not get his base?
PU: He didn't pull is bat back.
Me (turning to BU): So you ruled that he offered at the pitch?
BU: No. I ruled that he didn't pull his bat back and he (PU) said it was a strike then.
Me (turning back to PU): Why is that a strike?
PU: Because he didn't pull his bat back before the ball hit him.
Me: So you are saying that he offered at the pitch.
PU: No. I am saying that he didn't pull his bat back, so it is a strike.
Me: Simply not pulling your bat back is not offering at the pitch.
PU: In my opinion it is. That's it coach.

At this point, I could see that I was getting nowhere and returned to the third base coaching box.

My main question is, have I alway mistaken the rule that you have to actually offer at the pitch and simply not pulling your bat back is not an offer?

If I am correct, could someone please give me a rule reference (or preferrably a case play) to show that I am correct.

Thanks to all.

[Rich Ives]

In baseball there must be an offer at the pitch.

In softball you must pull the bat back (NCAA and FED anyhow).


The rules differences betweer similar sports and also among the various sanctioning bodies cause many a person to apply a wrong rule to a current event.

[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.

[mbyron]

Sounds like PU got talked into a strike. Harmbu, your understanding is correct for all codes, as reflected in the FED case play already cited.

[kylejt]

When you were allowed to discuss this with the base umpire, that was a tip to me that these are not good umpires. You should have protested their misapplication of the rules.

[MD Longhorn]

You, as coach, had done EXACTLY what you needed to do in order to determine if you had a valid protest ... clarifying what PU/BU were ruling, and not telling them they were wrong ... right up until you said, "Simply not pulling your bat back is not offering at the pitch." At that moment, instead, you should have protested his misapplication of the rules. BY RULE, he was wrong.

I would have shut you down at the same moment he did. Clarify all you want - once you cross into telling the U the rules, the conversation is over. Don't do that. If a U has the RULE wrong (and not judgement), protest.

But you would have won any protest.

And I agree that the umps didn't have any clue what they were doing if they had both umpires talking to you at the same time.

[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.

[Gaff]

Had this same situation last year in a High School Game. Batter got drilled trying to get out of the way. Head Coach comes out and argues that he didn't pull the bat back. I told him in my judgement he didn't offer at the pitch and was awarded 1st base. Coach said that I didn't know the rules blah, blah, blah. Told him I was sure of the rule and he must be confused because his daughters play softball. Even though I was right and the coach was wrong I am no longer allowed to umpire at his school because, according to him, I don't know the rules and I am out to get him.

[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.

[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.

[JaxRolo]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You, as coach, had done EXACTLY what you needed to do in order to determine if you had a valid protest ... clarifying what PU/BU were ruling, and not telling them they were wrong ... right up until you said, "Simply not pulling your bat back is not offering at the pitch." At that moment, instead, you should have protested his misapplication of the rules. BY RULE, he was wrong.

I would have shut you down at the same moment he did. Clarify all you want - once you cross into telling the U the rules, the conversation is over. Don't do that. If a U has the RULE wrong (and not judgement), protest.

But you would have won any protest.

And I agree that the umps didn't have any clue what they were doing if they had both umpires talking to you at the same time.

ANY movement of the bat however slight can be construed as an offer. I think it would be hard to win this protest because the Umpire can just say that the bat moved.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JaxRolo

ANY movement of the bat however slight can be construed as an offer. I think it would be hard to win this protest because the Umpire can just say that the bat moved.

Not really, unless the umpire lies during the protest. He got the umpire to say that the player DID NOT offer at the ball, yet called it a strike anyway.