bunt attempt head scratcher??

[shipwreck]

ASA rules. On a bunt attempt, just holding the bat across the plate and not pulling the bat back, does not constitute offering at the pitch, so technically this isn't a bunt attempt. Ok, situation. Two strikes on the batter. She holds that bat out over the plate as if to bunt. She keeps the bat still with no movement. The pitched ball hits the bat and goes foul. What do you have? I am sure everyone would call the batter out, but not sure that is correct, since by holding the batt still she didn't offer at the pitch. Let's hear from you. Dave

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by shipwreck
ASA rules. On a bunt attempt, just holding the bat across the plate and not pulling the bat back, does not constitute offering at the pitch, so technically this isn't a bunt attempt. Ok, situation. Two strikes on the batter. She holds that bat out over the plate as if to bunt. She keeps the bat still with no movement. The pitched ball hits the bat and goes foul. What do you have? I am sure everyone would call the batter out, but not sure that is correct, since by holding the batt still she didn't offer at the pitch. Let's hear from you. Dave

It would be an out in my game. I saw her intent was to bunt
and usually the bat is in the strke zone when attempting to bunt. I don't
feel this would be guessing a strike or an attempt. Ring her up.

[mcrowder]

What the heck are you mumbling about?

If the bat is out there in bunt position, and the batter doesn't move the bat as the ball hits it, then the batter DID make an attempt to bunt the ball. She didn't HAVE to move the bat to make this particular attempt, as the ball was already on target to meet the bat.

[shipwreck]

mcrowder, what's your problem anyway. I am not MUMBLING about anything. I was just asking what I thought was a legitimate question. If you think it is below you to try to answer then just keep your smarta... remarks to your self. Dave

[Steve M]

Dave,
I'm with Glen. I am most likely going to see that as an attempted bunt. Since the bat hit the ball, there was no reason for the batter to adjust the location of the bat. In that case, if you ain't offereing - get the bat out of the way of the pitch.

[outathm]

Originally posted by shipwreck
If you think it is below you to try to answer then just keep your smarta... remarks to your self. Dave [/B]

Thank you Dave, for saying what I, as a 'non Senior member" have thought for a long time and not felt I was in the position to say.

[mcrowder]

My sincerest and deepest apologies for using the offensive word, "mumbling".

My intention has never been to be rude. Sarcastic occasionally, frank often, but not rude. Rereading my comments above, I still don't see them as rude, but tone is always hard to infer from text.

I also still feel like my comments were dead-on. Disagree if you choose - I won't be offended. But I'll stick by: "If the bat is out there in bunt position, and the batter doesn't move the bat as the ball hits it, then the batter DID make an attempt to bunt the ball. She didn't HAVE to move the bat to make this particular attempt, as the ball was already on target to meet the bat."

[Dakota]

Unless the batter was in the act of pulling the bat back, this is a foul ball on a bunt attempt, batter out.

If the batter was in the act of pulling the bat back, it is no longer a bunt attempt, and merely a foul ball, but expect some grief from the defense on this.

[bluezebra]

In order to be a bunt ATTEMPT, the batter has to OFFER at the pitch. The holding of the bat, and not moving it, is NOT considered OFFERING.

If the bat was held still, and the pitch was out of the strike zone, would you call the pitch a strike? No? Then why say it's an attempt if there was no movement of the bat, and the pitch hit the bat.

Bob

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally posted by bluezebra
In order to be a bunt ATTEMPT, the batter has to OFFER at the pitch. The holding of the bat, and not moving it, is NOT considered OFFERING.

If the bat was held still, and the pitch was out of the strike zone, would you call the pitch a strike? No? Then why say it's an attempt if there was no movement of the bat, and the pitch hit the bat.

Bob

The ASA POE #9 provides a bit more editorial intent; it states "On a bunt attempt where the batter puts the bat across the plate, unless the batter moves the bat toward the ball, a strike would not be called if the ball is out of the strike zone." This jives more with the training I am sure I heard and what I believed to be the intent of the rule. It seems to me that putting the bat in the one place where it can hit the ball HAS TO BE AN ATTEMPT! We are splitting nits if we look solely at no further movement; no movement is needed if the batter put the bat in the right place to begin with! This ruling is for when the ball is somewhere else, and the batter doesn't follow it, it isn't an attempt. When the ball is right there, it is obviously (at least to me) an attempt.

[mcrowder]

Let's be honest here.

You are PU, and your evaluator is in the stands. Winner of the game goes to the state tournament. 7th inning, tie score, 2 outs, 2 strikes, runner on third.

Batter sets up to bunt, doesn't move the bat, and fouls the ball off.

Is ANYONE here going to call this a foul, and not a strikeout? Is anyone expecting to work any further important games after making this call, and then ejecting the offended manager (and likely an assistant or two... followed by a protest proceeding). Does anyone expect to be called back to work the 8th inning of this suspended game?

I do see the hair you are trying to split here. I just can't understand the desire to force a batter to move the bat when moving the bat is not necessary (the bat was already perfectly placed) to hit the ball.

[shipwreck]

I just brought this scenario up since this particular discussion came up Sunday afternoon of a big tourney I was working. After thinking about it I was thinking, if the batter just holds the bat out over the plate looking like they were going to bunt, and doesn't pull it back, and the pitch comes in out of the strike zone we don't call a strike since she didn't offer at it so logically you would think it would be the same if the bat was held stationary out of the strike zone it wouldn't be a bunt attempt. Dave

[azbigdawg]

Bunt. Strike 3. batter out. (now wasnt that easy?)

[Dakota]

You guys (who are arguing the bat held still and the ball hits it is not a bunt attempt) are, putting it directly, wrong.

Bases loaded. 1 out. Batter squares to bunt, holds the bat perfectly still, and the ball hits the bat and pops up such that it can be caught with oridnary effort, etc.

You gonna call IF, too?

Gimme a break. It's a freaking bunt.

[officialtony]

Dave,
I'm going to add my two cents worth.
If the pitch is in the strike zone, she has laid the bat out there in a traditionally accepted bunt attempt, the ball comes directly to her bat where she has chosen to place it, the ball hits the bat because she chose not to remove the bat from the area from which she was attempting to bunt, ball goes foul - end result is fouled bunt attempt and you are out. If that costs me a tournament assignment, so be it.
That's my call and I am sticking to it.
Just my humble opinion.

[Edited by officialtony on May 10th, 2005 at 01:46 PM]