Bunt ball or strike?

[K'SDAD]

Batter squares to bunt the pitch is outside, but batter does not pull bat back out of strike zone, or for that matter move the bat at all. Ball or strike?

[Bretman]

I will assume you're not asking about NCAA softball. In the college game, failure to pull back the bat equates to an offer at the pitch.

For evreything below that level, it does not. Whether or not the batter offered at the pitch, or attempted to make contact, is strictly the judgment of the umpire.

If the bat is merely held stationary over the plate, with no movement or motion toward the ball, the pitch should be judged on its own merits as a ball or strike, depending on if it's in or out of the strike zone.

That is how the rule works, but the judgment of the guy standing behind the plate is another matter. From a practical standpoint, you might want to coach your batter's to pull back. With the bat hanging over the plate and a pitch coming in, any little flinch or bat wiggle might be construed as an offer at the pitch.

If the batter pulls back, it sends a clear message that her intent was to not strike the ball.

[K'SDAD]

Bretman, Thanks for your input.

[Patrick]

NFHS in it's infinite wisdom, has changed it's rule to align with the NCAA rule.
Merely holding the bat in the strike zone in NFHS in 2008-2009 IS a strike.

[MTR]

NFHS in it's infinite wisdom, has changed it's rule to align with the NCAA rule.
Merely holding the bat in the strike zone in NFHS in 2008-2009 IS a strike.

Yep, real intelligent.

[TexBlue1]

They may as well get use to it, cause their next step is NCAA and they do it.

Why is the bat over the plate, to hit the ball, if not remove it.

[skahtboi]

They may as well get use to it, cause their next step is NCAA and they do it.

I have never understood this logic for NFHS to change rules to match NCAA. Less than 10% of HS players will move on to play any level of college ball. Why then, should NFHS make adjustments to accomodate the minority of its players?

Merely holding the bat in the strike zone, IMO, should not be called a strike. There needs to be some attempt, such as moving the bat to meet the ball, for a strike to occur. The simplified rule, that exists in both NCAA and now NFHS, is simply a rule to appeal to coaches who want the holding of the bat in the strike zone to be a strike, since it eliminates any umpire judgement.

[TexBlue1]

They may as well get use to it, cause their next step is NCAA and they do it.

I have never understood this logic for NFHS to change rules to match NCAA. Less than 10% of HS players will move on to play any level of college ball. Why then, should NFHS make adjustments to accomodate the minority of its players?

Merely holding the bat in the strike zone, IMO, should not be called a strike. There needs to be some attempt, such as moving the bat to meet the ball, for a strike to occur. The simplified rule, that exists in both NCAA and now NFHS, is simply a rule to appeal to coaches who want the holding of the bat in the strike zone to be a strike, since it eliminates any umpire judgement.

This rule is also AFA and NAFA.

[MTR]

They may as well get use to it, cause their next step is NCAA and they do it.

That doesn't mean it is right, or for that matter, smart.

The premise of a strike is an attempt by the batter to strike the ball, hence the term "strike".

If the ball goes behind the batter and hits the bat, it is either a fair or foul ball. If it doesn't hit the bat it is not a strike because the batter did not move the bat.

[gablue]

For the 2008 HS year it is not a strike. I've heard they are going to change it for next year, but as of right now, its a ball or strike depending on whether the ball crosses the plate in or out of the strike zone. They do not have to draw the bat back.