How are you guys calling this?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JEL

I think this may be where some confusion is. I have been waiting (and it will happen) for a coach to argue that the bat was still in the strike zone.

Note that "the HOLDING of the bat in the strike zone" constitutes a strike, but while WITHDRAWING the bat there is no mention of it being either in or out of the zone, only that it is being withdrawn and not held stationary.

If we were to call the withdrawing a strike if the bat was still in the zone, wouldn't that drastically change the way we look at a check swing?

OK, but what about bat waggling?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

OK, but what about bat waggling?

They've got a name for you, Mr. Chaney.

[JEL]

Originally Posted by Dakota

OK, but what about bat waggling?

well,,,,,,

In Dixie baseball "waggling" gets a warning first, then eject the coach and player as I recall!

I hope the FED rules committee don't read that rulebook!

[greymule]

Do any codes other than Dixie prohibit waggling?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by JEL

well,,,,,,

In Dixie baseball "waggling" gets a warning first, then eject the coach and player as I recall!

I hope the FED rules committee don't read that rulebook!

Please humor me and explain why ?

[JEL]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

Please humor me and explain why ?

They consider it USC and want to avoid a "plunkin" from the pitcher. A batter squaring to bunt then hitting away gets the same.


If you mean explain the last sentence, well they may like it!

[BretMan]

I know that we kicked around the new FED bunt rule earlier this year. One of the points discussed was the part about the bat being held "in the strike zone" equalling an attempt.

Has anyone heard anything more about how absolute or literal the holding of the bat "in the strike zone" requirement of the new rule really is?

For instance, what would you have on these plays:

- Batter sets up all the way in the front of the box. She squares to bunt, holding the bat straight out about waist high.

However, due to her positioning in the batter's box, the bat is in front of the plate. By a strict reading of the new rule, the bat is NOT being held "in the strike zone".

Batter holds bat stationary as the pitch comes in about nose high- out of the strike zone. No movement of the bat is made toward the ball.

Offer? No offer? Strike? Ball?

- Batter squares to bunt, holding bat over plate but about chin high (out of the strike zone).

Without any movement of the bat, the batter holds this position as the pitch comes in below the knees (or, otherwise out of the strike zone).

Do you ring up a strike?

[Skahtboi]

Personally, I am enforcing it the way I have enforced the NCAA bunt rule all of these years. I believe that the NFHS rule folk meant an attempt to simply be the holding of the bat in a bunt position without pulling the bat back. Look at the spirit of the rule, rather than breaking it down word for word.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Look at the spirit of the rule, rather than breaking it down word for word.

That is my first inclination and one that makes perfect sense to me.

However, in previous discussions some had reported being told by FED "higher-ups" that the requirement of the bat being held within the strike zone was, literally, how the rule should be interpreted.

I was just curious if anyone else had been told anything different.