ASA Test #49

[BretMan]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.