Case Play 2013-06: Foul Bunt with Two Strikes

[johnnyg08]

 

 

Why is everyone claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive.  It's a strikeout in the book, but runners are required to retouch, else they are laible on appeal. 

 

Simple

 

 

If you take a look at (forgotten) rule 10, you'll see the answer:

 

10.15 (4).

 

It's a fly out, not a strikeout.  QED.

 

 

Nice work Rich.  

[Umpire in Chief]

Let me go back to the beginning I've gotten sidetracked and my poor examples took a tangent. And I was trying too hard to incorrectly relate it to dead balls.  Aren't you glad I'm not a defense attorney???

 

Do what I mean not what I say.  
 

So from the top...

For the purposes of the described play:

With two out and a 2-2 count in the 9th inning of the final game of the season, a pitcher throwing in his last career game is sitting on 1,999 career strikeouts. On his final pitch of the game, the batter pops up a bunt into foul territory that is caught behind home plate by the catcher, three outs and game over.

Does the pitcher finish his career with 2,000 strikeouts because a foul bunt is a strike pursuant to Rule 2.00 ("a strike is a legal pitch...which (d) is bunted foul") or is he stuck at 1,999 because the fly ball was caught by a fielder pursuant to Rule 6.05(a) ("A batter is out when his fair or foul fly ball...is legally caught by a fielder")? Does the existence of Rule 6.05(d) change things ("he bunts foul on third strike")?

My answer is it is not a strike out but a fly out. 

 

My reasoning is that the 6.05(a) records the out when the foul fly is caught.

 

I would not rule the out based on 2.00 (d) because IMO the situation given would only result in a foul ball for the purposes of determining the out if the ball is not caught. The act of the catch completes the out on the bunted foul.

 

My reasoning is in 2.00 [foul] the use of the term touch. Throughout the rule book catch and touch (of the ball) are not used interchangeably. When used in the rule book touch (of the ball) indicates/implies not caught/ not yet caught. A caught fly ball is an out regardless of other circumstances (fair/foul, bunt/swing...) 

 

The catch is what is completing this out.

 

 

 

 

[bam]

Let me go back to the beginning I've gotten sidetracked and my poor examples took a tangent. And I was trying too hard to incorrectly relate it to dead balls.  Aren't you glad I'm not a defense attorney???

 

Do what I mean not what I say.  

 

So from the top...

For the purposes of the described play:

With two out and a 2-2 count in the 9th inning of the final game of the season, a pitcher throwing in his last career game is sitting on 1,999 career strikeouts. On his final pitch of the game, the batter pops up a bunt into foul territory that is caught behind home plate by the catcher, three outs and game over.

Does the pitcher finish his career with 2,000 strikeouts because a foul bunt is a strike pursuant to Rule 2.00 ("a strike is a legal pitch...which (d) is bunted foul") or is he stuck at 1,999 because the fly ball was caught by a fielder pursuant to Rule 6.05(a) ("A batter is out when his fair or foul fly ball...is legally caught by a fielder")? Does the existence of Rule 6.05(d) change things ("he bunts foul on third strike")?

My answer is it is not a strike out but a fly out. 

 

My reasoning is that the 6.05(a) records the out when the foul fly is caught.

 

I would not rule the out based on 2.00 (d) because IMO the situation given would only result in a foul ball for the purposes of determining the out if the ball is not caught. The act of the catch completes the out on the bunted foul.

 

My reasoning is in 2.00 [foul] the use of the term touch. Throughout the rule book catch and touch (of the ball) are not used interchangeably. When used in the rule book touch (of the ball) indicates/implies not caught/ not yet caught. A caught fly ball is an out regardless of other circumstances (fair/foul, bunt/swing...) 

 

The catch is what is completing this out.

 

 

 

 

You mean you're not going with black letter rule, but relying on interpretations to support the rule as written? 

Call me lazy, but if I've got a rule staring me in the face, I'm good.