Bunt attempt
 

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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 :rolleyes:

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.

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

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. :eek:

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

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? :confused:

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.

My question has always been,

If a batter places the bat in the strike zone, but that isn't where the ball is, how can anyone consider or confuse that with an attempt to contact the ball with the bat?? Wouldn't simple logic suggest that an attempt to contact the ball would include attempting to place the bat where the ball is, not where it isn't??

What do you mean "ball isn't in area"? No pitch thrown? Then OK.
But an attempt to stop a swing can certainly have the bat and ball in different areas and still be a swinging strike.
Likewise a batter can deliberately swing and miss a pitch for an intentional strike. Right?

If ball strikes (pun intended) bat while still on B's shoulder, it might have the same effect as if the ball was bunted, but how can that be considered a bunt?

If B, with 2 strikes, has bat on shoulder, and ball strikes bat and becomes foul, you wouldn't have dead ball strike 3 as you would if it were a bunt attempt, would you?

I am wondering if we are talking about the same thing here. :confused:

This is why I don't like the rule.

But we all know that some bunters have better techniques than others. Many lower-level players don't "get it" and simply "hope" that the ball hits the bat.

Now I know we are not in the mind-reading business, and apparently none of us wrote this rule, nor wouldn't have written this rule given the opportunity, but who knows what was in the minds of the framers of this rule.

As I understand it, decisions on NCAA Rules are made by a committee of voting coaches. I think it was only a few years ago that an umpire was added to the committe as a non-voting member.
I'm not sure if this is still true (that the umpire is non-voting)
Nuff Said

Don't have an ASA book with me, but the definition in the NCAA book says "Any pitch ..... or is swung at by the batter and missed." If the ASA book states the same, why are you required to call a strike in your sitch?

I'm talking about someone who intentionally swings the bat with no effort to hit the ball when the ball isn't there. IOW, it is just leaving the pitcher's hand or swings below the knees when the ball it 10' over their head or in or just about to be received by the catcher 7-10' outside. PLEASE NOTE that in all cases, the batter is simply swinging the bat, not attempting to swing at the pitch. You see it in slow pitch when a player would rather swing the bat than walk. I haven't seen it in a FP game since I played in the Navy.

Think of it this way. When a batter is in position to bat and the pitcher throws a pitch-out way outside and the batter relaxes allowing the bat fall off the shoulder and in the lead hand pendulates over the his/her toes. Do you call a strike? No, because the batter made no effort to strike the pitch.

Who said it was a bunt? I'm referring to the difference of trying to hit the pitch and not.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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.

What we have here is failure to communicate.
Cool Hand Luke.
"Getting my mind right, boss"

Yeah, you are correct, I did use the word. However, I was not talking about it actually being a bunt, but being like you mentioned, having the same effect.