Rule 2-8-2.

I pulled this from Cactus Umpires web site... 2009 NFHS Changes

2-8-2 Changed the definition of a bunt attempt to holding the bat in the strike zone and requiring the bat to be withdrawn in order to take a pitch.

Rationale: The new definition will make the bunt attempt easier for an umpire to determine and creates a better balance between offense and defense.

What seems not to be available is any information on a description of how it is to be called ?

It states: "In order to take a pitch, the bat must be withdrawn – pulled backward and away from the ball."

That could be used to say a pitch thrown behind or over the head and out of reach of a batter could not be called a strike.

But what about the pitch that bounces through the strike zone or is waist high and a foot outside etc.

I have ask around to sources that might know and if they have information on how to call this and have received no replies.

2009 NFHS Case Book

Part 1, Comments on the Rules
BUNT ATTEMPT DEFINITION (2-8-2): The definition of a bunt attempt was changed to require the batter to withdraw the bat in order to take a pitch. Holding the bat in the strike zone without withdrawal will be considered a bunt attempt. The change makes bunt attempts easier for the umpire to determine and creates better balance between offense and defense.

2.8.2 SITUATION: F1 pitches the ball; B1 squares to bunt and (a) leaves the bat in the strike zone without making any movement towards the ball; (b) makes a forward movement with the bat towards the ball; or (c) withdraws the bat prior to the ball entering the plate area. RULING: In (a) and (b), a strike is called on the batter. Holding the bat in the strike zone or making any movement of the bat toward the ball is considered a bunt attempt. In (c), a ball is awarded to the batter; the bat was withdrawn from the plate area. (2-2-1; 2-56-1)

*7.2.1 SITUATION B: (F.P.) B1 starts to swing at a pitch but attempts to hold back, or it appears as though it is an attempt to bunt the ball. In either case, B1 misses the ball. How does the umpire determine what to call the pitch? RULING: A call of this nature is based entirely upon the umpire's judgment. Therefore, the umpire shall, in order to be consistent, have guidelines to follow. Normally there are four areas that constitute whether or not the batter has swung at the ball or checked the swing: (1) rolling the wrist, (2) swinging through the ball and bringing or drawing the bat back, unless drawing it back occurs before the pitch gets to the bat, (3) the bat being out in front of the body, or (4) the batter makes an attempt to hit the pitch. In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area, or holding the bat in the strike zone, is a strike. The bat must be withdrawn in order to take a pitch. (2-8-1, 2; 10-1-4 Note)

[QUOTE=Dakota;668960]2009 NFHS Case Book


Thank you.

Guess I was looking too hard and missed it in the case book.

So using the statement from the case book *7.2.1 SITUATION B:.

In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area, or holding the bat in the strike zone, is a strike. The bat must be withdrawn in order to take a pitch. (2-8-1, 2; 10-1-4 Note)

Then it is up to the umpires judgment if the ball was near the plate area ( strike zone ) to call it a bunt attempt and a strike.

It's pretty simple, really. If the batter holds the bat in the strike zone without withdrawing it before the ball arrives, it is a strike, same as if the batter had offered at the pitch. There is no exception for a pitch that is well out of the strike zone; whereever the pitch is, the batter offered at it (by not withdrawing the bat).

I suppose you could make the case that the batter obviously did not attempt to bunt a pitch that was behind the batter's back, but the rule itself makes no such exception.

Personally, I dislike the rule, but the batters last season adapted very quickly and withdrew the bat to take the pitch, so the TWP situations never developed.

That is simply the definition of an Attempted Bunt.

Now, still waiting on a RULE that states an "attempted bunt" is a strike.

Aren't you the one who regularly defends fractured syntax and ambiguous grammar in rule books with statements like "if you know the game you know what was meant" or some such.

Well, if you know the game... ;)

Seriously, a pitch is coming and the batter can only do 2 things: offer at the pitch (swing, bunt) or take the pitch. If the batter offers at the pitch, the batter either makes contact or does not make contact. If the batter does not make contact on an offer, it is a strike.

So, when the definition says that the batter must withdraw the bat to take, isn't it pretty clear to anyone who knows the game (;)) that the alternative if the batter does not withdraw is an offer?

It doesn't say "swung at".

Since you brought it up, where does it say in the ASA rule book that an attempted bunt should be called a strike?

ASA does not have or define an "attempted bunt", but you knew that.:cool:

But you want 7.4.D and RS #10.

7.4.D only has a strike called on a swing!

And RS#10 doesn't connect swing and bunt for you? :confused:

Of course, you are correct that there is no specific rule, but I believe ASA connects the two through similar application since there really is no definition of swing.

Oh, what a minute! If there is no definition of a swing, how can we call it a strike if we don't know what a swing is? Hmmmmm....:rolleyes:

Of course it does; I was just picking on you for picking on NFHS... ;)

Speaking of fractured syntax and ambiguous grammar in rule books...

The rule states that...

"In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate area, or holding the bat in the strike zone, is a strike."

Why does it need to state or near the plate area" is there a point when the ball is not close enough to not call it a attempted bunt and a strike when the bat is moved toward the ball?

And then there's this glitch written right into the rule itself.

Suppose the batter is legally positioned in the front of the batter's box as she squares to bunt. In this position, the bat likely will NOT be held in the strike zone.

How about a batter standing dead even with the plate who squares to bunt and holds the bat over the plate, but at eye level (ie: above the defined strike zone).

In neither example did the batter: Withdraw the bat, or; Hold the bat in the strike zone.

This is why I don't like the rule. I don't know of an umpire who has a problem seeing a bunt attempt and it is ludicrous to call a strike on a batter on a pitch nowhere near the strike zone just because the batter did not pull a bat back to avoid a pitch that isn't there.

Still think it is a lazy man's rule.