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?

Let's take this from another angle. What if there were a NCAA or NFHS game where the definition of an attempted bunt has a twist to it.

Would your ruling be the same?

When I first saw this play posted on the FB page, I initially answered that all I have is a foul ball and the batter remains at bat. My question was the same one MD Longhorn mentioned..."when does the bunt attempt end?"

I'm guessing that we will just need to file this one under a HTBT because there is way too much gray area here to provide a definitive ruling. I do think I would know what to call when I saw it, though...

My question was a simple rule question, no judgment required since the OP told us the batter was no longer attempting to bunt.

I do agree that getting TO that position is a tricky bit.

As it turns out, I have made this call one time. In my case, though, the judgment was easy. The batter squared to bunt, but the pitch comes in "high and tight" as they say. The batter was bailing/diving out of the batter's box and the pitch hits the bat. The batter was clearly not making any attempt to do anything but trying to avoid getting hit in the head.

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.

I don't it is a perfect example of the OP. The OP stated that batter didn't pull the bat back in time, not was trying to avoid being hit by the pitch.

And I'm visualizing it in real time. In spite of what the OP stated, I don't believe an umpire has that much time to make the decision of intent if the batter is simply pulling the bat BACK.

Maybe the problem here is that there just isn't enough definitive information or too much supposition to come to a conclusion.

I'm really not in a wordsmithing argument kind of mood ...

Dakota's situation is a perfect example of the situation I was trying to describe in the OP. That better?

A while back I posted a thread about a team whose bunters, when pulling back, brought the butt of the bat (the far end, not the handle) waaay back toward the catcher's face whenever there was a runner on base.

One of these girls did in fact foul the ball off on a 2-strike count while pulling it back in that fashion.

After calling the "Foul ball, batter's out", I used the opportunity to inform the (livid) 3B coach that INT will indeed be called if this nonsense hinder's F2's play on a steal.

This practice is obviously taught by the coach, and while USC may be a stretch for both coach and batter, I wouldn't lose much sleep over the ejection...

Semi_hijack over :)

How is reading the words offered and applying the appropriate meaning wordsmithing?


You want to change it to the "batter was bailing out trying to avoid a HBP? Sure, that would just be a foul ball. Feel better now? :)

What was the coach's argument? That the batter was not attempting to bunt since she was attempting to interfere? :D

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.

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...".) :cool:



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?

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.