Daily trivia (ASA)

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Under what is being posted here, if the batter is pulling the bat back when the ball touches it, it cannot be a bunt.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Foul and out.

So why's she out?

[EsqUmp]

Sounds like some people are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

In order to be out on a two-strike foul bunt, you have to bunt. If you batter's actions don't meet the definition of a bunt, you're not out. It's only a foul ball. It's the batter's actions at the time of contact that matter, not what she had done previous.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like some people are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

In order to be out on a two-strike foul bunt, you have to bunt. If you batter's actions don't meet the definition of a bunt, you're not out. It's only a foul ball. It's the batter's actions at the time of contact that matter, not what she had done previous.

Or perhaps (and you really should default to this position) you're misunderstanding somebody. As I read what Irish is saying it's this:
A player trying to bunt who gets the ball even while drawing the bat back has bunted and you need to call them out if it goes foul. He notes that there are a number of arguments to which he gives little credence and that he sees as mostly excuses.
Bretman replied indicating he finds one of those arguments compelling.
Did I catch both of your positions correctly, guys? (EsqUmp, you probably could have done that yourself or asked nicely yourself).

Now as to the question, my two cents: I think Irish is right here. The definition of a bunt requires the ball to be intentionally slowly tapped into the infield. Yet if the batter puts the bat out there, gets scared and closes her eyes, and then the ball hits the bat and goes quickly into foul territory on an 0-2 count is there really anybody here who is going to let her stay at bat? If not, then you've already accepted that the rule is badly written and you're just arguing over how to interpret what was actually meant. IMJ, a player who gets ready to bunt and then hits the ball while still looking like a person bunting has bunted.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Agreed.



So why's she out?

It isn't what I'm am saying, but what others are implying. If the implication is that it cannot be a bunt because the bat was being pulled back, then by the implication, you can never have a bunt when the bat is moving away from the ball.

I think she is out because I disagree with the implication. It is not uncommon, or at least it wasn't when I was playing baseball/FP softball, for a batter to show bunt and draw the barrel of the bat back to soften the contact and/or direct the ball. The bat was being pulled back, but it was still a bunt. If you want to draw a line as to when it is still a bunt and when it is not, can you define that line?

I see little difference between this discussion and a check swing. The batter doesn't swing a bat by accident, so when a swing starts, the intent is to hit the ball. The batter simply changing his/her mind does not negate whether it is to be considered a swing or not.

[Dakota]

Mike, from the OP:

"The pitch comes in, and the batter decides not to offer and pulls her bat back."

Since the play description told us the player's intent, we don't need to worry about that. This batter was not trying to soften the bunt. The batter was trying to not offer. We know that because we were told that.

So, assuming you can determine that the batter was no longer attempting a bunt, but was rather attempting to take the pitch, is the batter still out? Why?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Mike, from the OP:

"The pitch comes in, and the batter decides not to offer and pulls her bat back."

Since the play description told us the player's intent, we don't need to worry about that. This batter was not trying to soften the bunt. The batter was trying to not offer. We know that because we were told that.

So, assuming you can determine that the batter was no longer attempting a bunt, but was rather attempting to take the pitch, is the batter still out? Why?

If that is the case, obviousl, that would be up to the umpire's judgment and it is going to be a tough call either way. It is not like an umpire actually has time, or would it be a priority, to see and try to determine the intent of the batter in this situation. And I do not believe there is a steadfast response here.

As simple as this seems, there may be a lot going on with this play. At what point is the batter not trying to hit the ball? The OP noted that the batter decided not to offer, but as an umpire, you do not know that. Where is the line that the umpire would know that? How do you as the umpire know when and how to determine that batter's intent?

The OP also states the "she can't get it out of the way in time", so apparently the bat was still in a position to bunt the ball. And who placed the bat in such a position with the intent to bunt the ball?