NFHS, Bunt Rule
 

NFHS rules, Batter shows bunt at a pitch but does not move the bat toward the ball in flight. The pitched ball is not in the strike zone. Would this be a strike?

Did this change this year?

Thanks

Yes the rule changed this year.
STRIKE
2-8-2
"...Holding the bat in the strike zone is a bunt attempt..."

So, a batter squares to bunt (yeah, I know, most people nowadays would ask what the hell is she doin'?), holds that bat out over the plate preparing to bunt. All of a sudden, the pitch breaks high and inside and the batter ducks without withdrawing the bat. Still a strike?

OTOH, if the batter holds the bat out over the plate at shoulder level, still a strike?

My opinion only, dumb rule. For more than a century, umpires have not had an issue with this non-issue, so what does that tell you about the NFHS' & NCAA's opinion of the competence of their umpires?

Nope. It changed last year!

Anyone using NFHS rules should have already played an entire season (2009) using the new bunt rule.

Don't you mean "non-bunt" rule :rolleyes: ;)

Sorry, but I have never understood not requiring a batter to pull their bat back. IMO the only reason it's a non-issue is that it very, very seldom happens.

Not sure what you mean, but you need to include baseball as well. ASA must be the only large organization with a high opinion of their umpires. I guess that's why their mechanics are so intuitive and flexible. :rolleyes:

You mean it was changed last year for use in the 2010 book?

wiseguy????:rolleyes:

I was just going to say the same thing.

No. It changed in 2008 for the 2009 book.

Jeez what a Dufus, I am....

In my rush to be a wise guy, I went and looked up my NFHS PDF from last year.... unfortunately I clicked on BB instead of SB..:eek:

and before you add the obvious...
Yes, I'm sure I was calling it properly last year. I pay attention to that stuff.

It's just that last year was last year and between xSA, HS, NCAA, etc, I didn't specifically remember (which is why I looked it up - which is what got me in trouble in the first place)

I should have known not to question Bret:D

Really? If it is that rare, why was it necessary to "create" a rule to address it? Hell, even as a kid playing baseball, a player had to attempt to hit the ball for the umpire to call a strike. Why should this one, lone situation be different?

To me, it is an indictment of the umpire's inability or refusal to make the proper call as the rule dictates. And if that is their attitude, lets go back to rounders where after the maximum number of pitches, the striker began running the bases whether they hit the ball or not. WTF, is that not the idea of the game anyway?

Maybe I'm older or younger than you, but as a kid, if we didn't pull our bat back when squaring to bunt, it was a strike.

Okay, I'm younger than you.

Nowhere I played or umpired. Scanning MLB, I cannot find anything that suggest such a rule in baseball.

I just think it is absurd calling a strike on a pitch that is neither in the strike zone or that the batter has attempted to hit.

I can see, well, actually have seen, a batter square to bunt only to stand there and watch the ball go over the backstop. And now there is a rule that insists that must be called a strike?

Sorry, IMO, that is simply absurd.

I know of no baseball code that requires the batter to pull back the bat. The umpire must judge if the batter actually offered at the ball.

Me too. I did not have to call this last year,so maybe the teams were fast learners.