Bunt with 2 strikes - accidental foul ball

[VolUmp]

I went through this situation on another forum about 4 years ago.  I know how at least one MLB representative ruled on it on the MLB.com site, but I'm wondering if this sitch has made its way into a casebook or interp manual.

 

Batter with two strikes squares to bunt, pitch comes at his head, he tries to bail out (and for the purpose of this discussion, all agree that he made no attempt to bunt it), but the pitch hits the bat and rolls foul.

 

How do we rule?  And I'm asking generically, but I would love to see something in writing for OBR, NCAA, or FED.

[UmpJM]

"FOUL!"

 

JM

[BalkHawk]

Same as if he never squares to bunt and accidentally fouls a ball while bailing out.

[JaxRolo]

Foul

[LMSANS]

I've had a pitch go behind the batter and hit his bat, while still on his shoulder..."foul!". Same as yours. Larry Sansevere Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boyinr]

Is there any other possible answer?

[grayhawk]

Is there any other possible answer?

 

No

[yawetag]

Is there any other possible answer?

 

On most tests, there are at least three other possible answers. However, none of those three would be correct.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

I've had a pitch go behind the batter and hit his bat, while still on his shoulder..."foul!". Same as yours. Larry Sansevere Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

  And twice I have seen the same thing, only with a "fair" result.

[noumpere]

I went through this situation on another forum about 4 years ago.  I know how at least one MLB representative ruled on it on the MLB.com site, but I'm wondering if this sitch has made its way into a casebook or interp manual.

 

Batter with two strikes squares to bunt, pitch comes at his head, he tries to bail out (and for the purpose of this discussion, all agree that he made no attempt to bunt it), but the pitch hits the bat and rolls foul.

 

How do we rule?  And I'm asking generically, but I would love to see something in writing for OBR, NCAA, or FED.

Doesnt a bunt by defintion have to be intentional?  This play obviously wasnt, no matter the initial attempt.  So I agree with all the others that its foul.  I sure hope that's what you'll come back with from the MLB representative.

[VolUmp]

Well, I know some of you were on the other forum I referred to, and even among the MLB umpires there is disagreement on this sitch.  I had to spell out the specifics because I don't wanna waste time arguing over intent ... but even with the specifics as I presented them, some MLB umpires take the position that once you square around, it is established that you are "bunting" and if you pull back or bail, you accidentally BUNTED.  If the ball goes foul, this camp would call you out.

 

The MLB rep gave his position, that it is a foul ball, but he's not an umpire, and he made it pretty clear that two different umps could easily call it differently.

 

While all of you who responded are in agreement, none offered anything in the way of a casebook reference or interp manual reference.  I presume there are none, especially if MLB can't even agree on it.

[CricketChapman]

This happened in a MLB game last season.  As a majority of the posters here said, "Foul."

http://www.closecallsports.com/2012/05/ejection-026-jim-joyce-1.html

[UmpJM]

From OBR Rule 2.0:

 

 

A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped

slowly within the infield.

 

No intent, no bunt - by definition.

 

JM

[Thunderheads]

From OBR Rule 2.0:

 

 

 

A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped

slowly within the infield.

 

No intent, no bunt - by definition.

 

JM

Can you smell the fresh clean scent of sensibility here ^^^^ ????     "FOUL"!

 

The video also leads to an EJ

[bam]

Is there any other possible answer?

 

No

There is an infinite # of possible answers.  There is only one correct answer.

[noumpere]

From OBR Rule 2.0:

 

 

 

A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped

slowly within the infield.

 

No intent, no bunt - by definition.

 

JM

Thank you for quoting the rule which I referred to in my post.  Sorry that I didn't have the books nearby when I was posting it.

[yawetag]

According to Jim Evans: "Intent is a factor in determining whether a pitch was bunted or not. Intent and not the position of the hands on
the bat define an attempt to bunt."

[Magic]

Nor grabbing the $h1tty end of that stick. FOUL!!!

[BalkHawk]

I believe the intent to which Mr. Evans was referring is the batter's intent to hit the ball IN FRONT of the fielders. 

[NFUA_44]

From the JEA:

 

A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped slowly within the
infield.

Cross References: 2.00 Infield Fly, 6.05(d, h, i)
The 1950 definition was essentially the same with one exception. It defined a bunt as"... a legally
batted ball...." The adjective legally was dropped in 1956. Bunted balls may be illegally struck as Rule 6.05(d)
decrees.
Intent is a factor in determining whether a pitch was bunted or not. Intent and not the position of the hands on
the bat define an attempt to bunt.
A pitch that is swung at with the hands apart to deceive the defensive team shall not be considered a bunt.
Key terms/concepts in helping define a bunt are: not swung at, intentionally met, and tapped slowly.
The “infield fly" rule does not apply to bunted balls, but the “intentionally dropped ball†rule does apply

Sums it up pretty nicely I would say!