A Bunt or not a Bunt

[henryg]

I was at a tournament this past weekend and was told by an umpire that the current ASA FP definition of a bunt is holding the bat over the plate and not pulling it back as the pitch crosses the plate. My (old) 2005 ASA rulebook say that the batter must offer at the pitch and attempt to tap the ball. If they do not offer at the pitch (and just hold the bat over the plate) then the pitch should be called either a ball or strike based on whether it crossed through the strike zone. What is the correct ruling and is it consistant for all FP rulebooks (ASA, HS, etc)?

[Bretman]

The umpire that told you that had it wrong.

High school/NFHS softball adopted that rule (holding bat in strike zone equals "an offer") last year. NCAA has had the same rule in place for some time.

The ASA rules still require the batter to make some movement to touch the ball in order for it to be ruled as an offer. In their game, if the bat is held stationary over the plate the pitch is ruled a ball or strike based on its relation to the strike zone.

[henryg]

Perfect. Thanks.

[MTR]

The umpire that told you that had it wrong.

High school/NFHS softball adopted that rule (holding bat in strike zone equals "an offer") last year. NCAA has had the same rule in place for some time.

The ASA rules still require the batter to make some movement to touch the ball in order for it to be ruled as an offer. In their game, if the bat is held stationary over the plate the pitch is ruled a ball or strike based on its relation to the strike zone.

I think ASA has it right and consistant with the definition of a strike.

The other is just a lazy man's call. Now you have a conundrum. If they don't pull it back, it is a strike. If they pull it back and the umpire believes it interfered with the catcher, the batter is out.

[shagpal]

Rationale: Changing the definition will make the bunt attempt easier for an umpire to
determine and creates a better balance between offense and defense.

http://www.cifns.org/Announcements/2008 ... hanges.pdf

what is "lazy" about it? because it's easier? what is wrong with simplifying things for game sake? what benefit to the game is there for a maintaining a seemingly more complicated rule, to give the umpire more rules and power to rule on?

The umpire that told you that had it wrong.

High school/NFHS softball adopted that rule (holding bat in strike zone equals "an offer") last year. NCAA has had the same rule in place for some time.

The ASA rules still require the batter to make some movement to touch the ball in order for it to be ruled as an offer. In their game, if the bat is held stationary over the plate the pitch is ruled a ball or strike based on its relation to the strike zone.

I think ASA has it right and consistant with the definition of a strike.

The other is just a lazy man's call. Now you have a conundrum. If they don't pull it back, it is a strike. If they pull it back and the umpire believes it interfered with the catcher, the batter is out.

[MTR]

Rationale: Changing the definition will make the bunt attempt easier for an umpire to determine and creates a better balance between offense and defense.

That belief in itself is a load of crap. It doesn't meet the requirements of a strike by definition.

what is "lazy" about it? because it's easier? what is wrong with simplifying things for game sake?

I wasn't aware that making something easier was part of a competitive game. WTF, lets just call every ball the bounces twice on the dirt or once in the grass a single, twice in the grass a double, three times in the grass a triple and anything else a HR? There you go, can't get much simpler than that. And it makes it cheaper since you no longer need bases, just keep adding the number of bases earned in an inning to keep score. Hell, now we can even play this game from home on a Wii, no need for a field or umpires!!! For that matter, I guess we can dump the coaches, too.

what benefit to the game is there for a maintaining a seemingly more complicated rule, to give the umpire more rules and power to rule on?

You mean the rule that has been in use for more than a century with no problems? It isn't hard for anyone willing to actually go out and do the job for which they are being paid. But I must say one thing. You have now convinced me it is not only a change to laziness, but also another move to dumb down a relatively simple game for those who are too damn stupid to get out of their own way.

[Imperial SB Dad]

We had an umpire in our fall league tell us that the bat had to move forward towards the ball to be considered an attempt to bunt the ball. This was after a batter had moved the bat up and down vertically over the plate as the pitch passed over the plate. He ruled the pitch a ball based on it's location.

[shagpal]

wow, take it easy. I merely asked why you thought it wasn't cool to you. I was asking to see what you thought, that's all. point taken, and noted.

Rationale: Changing the definition will make the bunt attempt easier for an umpire to determine and creates a better balance between offense and defense.

That belief in itself is a load of crap. It doesn't meet the requirements of a strike by definition.

what is "lazy" about it? because it's easier? what is wrong with simplifying things for game sake?

I wasn't aware that making something easier was part of a competitive game. WTF, lets just call every ball the bounces twice on the dirt or once in the grass a single, twice in the grass a double, three times in the grass a triple and anything else a HR? There you go, can't get much simpler than that. And it makes it cheaper since you no longer need bases, just keep adding the number of bases earned in an inning to keep score. Hell, now we can even play this game from home on a Wii, no need for a field or umpires!!! For that matter, I guess we can dump the coaches, too.

what benefit to the game is there for a maintaining a seemingly more complicated rule, to give the umpire more rules and power to rule on?

You mean the rule that has been in use for more than a century with no problems? It isn't hard for anyone willing to actually go out and do the job for which they are being paid. But I must say one thing. You have now convinced me it is not only a change to laziness, but also another move to dumb down a relatively simple game for those who are too damn stupid to get out of their own way.

[GIMNEPIWO]

We had an umpire in our fall league tell us that the bat had to move forward towards the ball to be considered an attempt to bunt the ball. This was after a batter had moved the bat up and down vertically over the plate as the pitch passed over the plate. He ruled the pitch a ball based on it's location.

What rule set ?

[HugoTafurst]

We had an umpire in our fall league tell us that the bat had to move forward towards the ball to be considered an attempt to bunt the ball. This was after a batter had moved the bat up and down vertically over the plate as the pitch passed over the plate. He ruled the pitch a ball based on it's location.

Unless doing NCAA or NFHS, his description was pretty accurate.
Maybe you have an argument with the word "forward", but I would concentate more on the words "towards the ball", if looking for a way to describe the attempt.

Either way, I look for an attempt to make contact with the ball.
I wouldn't call a strike on a batter simply moving the bat up and down with out attempting to contact the ball.

I know at the younger levels it drives some people nuts, but.......