Daily trivia (ASA)

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Perfect example of the OP. I would not rule this an attempt to bunt - and if there were 2 strikes before that, I would not rule her out.

I'm curious to hear Mike's or Steve's opinion on exactly this situation though.

OK, my $.02.

Assume initially that you are ruling in a ruleset that requires you to pull the bat back to be judged "not a bunt" (NCAA or NFHS), the batter does whatever she does, and the ball DOESN'T hit the bat.

Now, in any given description of what the batter did, did she remove the bat sufficiently to NOT be a bunt attempt in that ruleset? If yes, then it isn't a bunt attempt, either, if the ball DOES accidentally hits the bat. But, if you consider that the batter, irrespective of any intent, still left the bat in the hitting area and insufficiently or belatedly pulled it back, then you still have a bunt attempt. And this, in my mind, applies in the rulesets (ASA) where it isn't necessary to pull back, too (just using that judgment process); if the bat is left in the hitting area and contacts the ball, it is a bunt attempt.

I won't/don't use intent at all in my judgment. After all, then every attempted checked swing means the batter's intent was to unswing!! And once she did, she did, and cannot unswing. Cannot unbunt, either, once attempted to bunt; can only "unsquare" prior to bunting.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...Now, in any given description of what the batter did, did she remove the bat sufficiently to NOT be a bunt attempt in that ruleset? If yes, then it isn't a bunt attempt, either, if the ball DOES accidentally hits the bat...

Regarding intent:

NFHS Rule 2-8: (underlining is my emphasis)

ART. 1 . . . Bunt. A bunt is a legally batted ball not swung at but intentionally tapped with the bat.

ART. 2 . . . Attempted Bunt. Any non-swinging movement of the bat intended to tap the ball into play. Holding the bat in the strike zone is considered a bunt attempt. In order to take a pitch, the bat must be withdrawn - pulled backward and away from the ball.

Now, I don't intend to make a stand on the use of "intentionally" or "intended" in these rules, but it does cause me to wonder: what is it when we have "a legally batted ball not swung at but unintentionally tapped with the bat"? (e.g. a checked swing, but the ball hits the bat while the batter is "Holding the bat in the strike zone...".)



Regarding removing the bat sufficiently to not be a bunt attempt:

NFHS Casebook: (again, underlining is my emphasis)

Rule: 2.8.2
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)

Is the NFHS saying they want the bat to be "withdrawn from the plate area" for it to not be a bunt attempt?

[UmpireErnie]

I tend to agree that if the batter is still in any kind of bunting stance or motion even if she may be pulling back it's going to be ruled a foul bunt batter out.

Lets change the OP and see if we all agree on the other end of spectrum.

2-2 count. B4 shows bunt thru the windup but pulls bat completely back as if to take a full swing, and does not swing. The pitch is hideously inside and B4 ducks but the pitch makes contact with the bat and lands in foul ground where it is touched by F2.