Daily trivia (ASA)
 

Runner at 2nd, 2-2 count. The batter squares up to bunt, trying to sacrifice the runner to 3rd. The pitch comes in, and the batter decides not to offer and pulls her bat back. However, she can't get it out of the way in time. It makes contact and the ball lands foul. What's the call?

FP: Foul. Batter was in the act of pulling the bat back so the batter was not attempting to bunt.

Bolded wording, a little vague.

She tries to pull the bat back, but doesn't pull it back fast enough and the ball still hits the bat.

Foul and out.

Wow, that I got :rolleyes:, just not sure how far and how held.


If that means still in a bunt position; then a foul bunt, out.

Irish, IMO it's not a bunt attempt. The batter is not swinging or trying to intentionally tap the ball with the bat. Once the batter has shown bunt, is the bunt attempt still in effect even thought the batter is drawing the bat back? Many thanks.

The question here really is this: When does the "bunt attempt" end? According to the definition of bunt, it's only a bunt if the ball is "intentionally tapped by the bat". If the ball strikes the bat while the batter is in the process of trying to pull the bat back and NOT attempt to hit it, is this enough to say that the ball is no longer intentionally being tapped?

I admit, my first answer to this question was OUT.

But upon re-reading the definition and some discussion on another board, I'm inclined to change my mind.

The rule doesn't say anything about attempt. The definition of bunt says nothing about attempt. And there is nothing in the definition of a bunt that notes a batter's position, stance, manner in which bat is held, yada, yada, yada. Under what is being posted here, if the batter is pulling the bat back when the all touches it, it cannot be a bunt.

Seems to me we are back to people trying to find a reason to excuse a player for failing.

Agreed.

So why's she out?

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.

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.

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?