Bunt attempt

[Rita C]

In softball, if a batter holds the bat over the plate and does not move it when the pitch comes in, this is judged as an attempt and therefore called a strike.

I believe it was on this board where someone explained why this makes sense for softball and why it can be considered an attempt even if the pitch comes in out of the strike zone.

Could someone reiterate that for me?

Rita

[RKBUmp]

Depends on what rule set you are playing under. In FED and I believe NCAA you are correct, but in ASA the batter is not required to remove the bat if the ball is out of the strike zone.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rita C

In softball, if a batter holds the bat over the plate and does not move it when the pitch comes in, this is judged as an attempt and therefore called a strike.

I believe it was on this board where someone explained why this makes sense for softball and why it can be considered an attempt even if the pitch comes in out of the strike zone.

Could someone reiterate that for me?

Rita

Mark me down for one who thinks this is a ridiculous rule and that which reflects laziness among the softball world.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Mark me down for one who thinks this is a ridiculous rule and that which reflects laziness among the softball world.

We are in agreement there. But I did think I heard some valid reasoning once from the softball world for it.

Rita

[BretMan]

What was the reasoning? That softball umpires are too dumb to judge if the batter attempted to contact the ball or not?

The "old" rule (which is the same as for baseball) served us well for many decades. It was first changed in NCAA softball a few years ago. NFHS followed suit a year or two later. Then the dominos started falling...NSA and USSSA also changed their rule to match the NCAA rule.

I'm not sure about the dozen other sanctioning bodies- I have enough trouble keeping the ones I actually work straight!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

What was the reasoning? That softball umpires are too dumb to judge if the batter attempted to contact the ball or not?

The "old" rule (which is the same as for baseball) served us well for many decades. It was first changed in NCAA softball a few years ago. NFHS followed suit a year or two later. Then the dominos started falling...NSA and USSSA also changed their rule to match the NCAA rule.

I'm not sure about the dozen other sanctioning bodies- I have enough trouble keeping the ones I actually work straight!

I think it was simply a follow the leader issue for NFHS and others. I have little doubt this was a coach-influenced change. Don't understand why, but who else would support such a move?

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think it was simply a follow the leader issue for NFHS and others. I have little doubt this was a coach-influenced change. Don't understand why, but who else would support such a move?

i dont understand many of the strategies/beliefs of JO coaches, so maybe they really did want it.

[MD Longhorn]

I stopped reading at "In softball..." The assumption (more widespread than anyone would like to admit) by so many that there is just one softball ruleset kind of irks me.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by Rita C

In softball, if a batter holds the bat over the plate and does not move it when the pitch comes in, this is judged as an attempt and therefore called a strike.

I believe it was on this board where someone explained why this makes sense for softball and why it can be considered an attempt even if the pitch comes in out of the strike zone.

Could someone reiterate that for me?

Rita

Rita,

IMO -the rule is in place for NCAA and trickled down to other rule sets is that coaches felt the batter could be attempting to bunt a ball without actually moving it toward the ball. The batter would just hold the bat without moving it and if the ball hit the bat, they have successfully bunted the ball, which is what they wanted to do anyway. If the ball missed the bat, it would be called a ball if it was out of the strike zone.

Just a guess.

[MD Longhorn]

Whether this is right or wrong, I'm not sure... but the way it was explained to me was that the NCAA (probably meaning coaches) felt that if the batter had the bat out there and didn't pull it back, they had it there for a reason. If that reason was not to hit the ball, then the only other conceivable reason was to interfere with the catcher's vision on a possible steal. To not even give the batter a strike for this seemed incongruous.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Whether this is right or wrong, I'm not sure... but the way it was explained to me was that the NCAA (probably meaning coaches) felt that if the batter had the bat out there and didn't pull it back, they had it there for a reason. If that reason was not to hit the ball, then the only other conceivable reason was to interfere with the catcher's vision on a possible steal. To not even give the batter a strike for this seemed incongruous.

Or maybe the batter was too stunned that a pitch was so far over her head or close to the ODB she didn't think to withdraw the bat

They want to presume the batter had intention by not withdrawing the bat, but there is absolutely no intention of gaining an advantage by the pitcher who loses contact with the ground when delivering the pitch.

What is wrong with how the game was meant to be played, you either try to hit the ball or you don't and that is what determines a strike? And don't waste a second of time telling me an umpire cannot tell the difference which, IMO, is exactly what is being insinuated by the rule.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And don't waste a second of time telling me an umpire cannot tell the difference which, IMO, is exactly what is being insinuated by the rule.

Seriously Mike - how many coaches already believe that we don't have a clue as to what we are calling?

[tcannizzo]

I don't like the rule myself, but the only logic I can apply that makes any sense is that a successful bunt does not require an "offer". Simply holding the bat still can result in a successful bunt. However, this does require the pitch to be in the vicinity of the bat. This is the reason I don't like the rule. If the bat is held belt high and the pitch is in the dirt, etc. does not equate to a strike in my book.

Another potential reasoning is similar to a check swing. We will call SWING if the bat enters the "hitting zone", even if the pitch is a mile a way.

Maybe I am talking myself into liking this rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

Seriously Mike - how many coaches already believe that we don't have a clue as to what we are calling?

Probably the same amount of umpires think the coaches don't know what they are doing.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

I don't like the rule myself, but the only logic I can apply that makes any sense is that a successful bunt does not require an "offer". Simply holding the bat still can result in a successful bunt. However, this does require the pitch to be in the vicinity of the bat. This is the reason I don't like the rule. If the bat is held belt high and the pitch is in the dirt, etc. does not equate to a strike in my book.

Another potential reasoning is similar to a check swing. We will call SWING if the bat enters the "hitting zone", even if the pitch is a mile a way.

No I don't. I've had players who don't want to walk just swing the bat when the ball isn't in the area. The definition requires a strike be called if the batter swings and missed a pitch. If there is no pitch to hit, how can it be a strike?

Hmmmmmm.....

Then again there is also the point that a pitch which hits a bat behind the batters head (still on the shoulder) makes a very good bunt, but it is not a strike if the pitched ball passes near the bat. Why, because the batter wasn't trying to strike the ball which, IMO, is the basis of any pitched ball being called a strike.

There is no logical reason to eliminate that requirement.