Not a strike

[ikeequa]

I've run across something I've never heard before, and need your expert opinion.

 

Is it possible to square around to bunt, not pull the bat back and get a ball called?

Here's the exact situation as I heard it:

The batter squares to bunt and holds his bat OVER the plate belt high. The pitch comes in and is caught by the catcher, but the umpire calls ball because the pitch was too high and out of the strike zone. Supposedly the umpire didn't call a strike because the batter didn't try to make contact with the ball even though he never pulled the bat back.

 

I always thought if your bat was over the plate when the pitch came in, it was a strike. A check swing is also not an attempt to hit the ball, but if your bat crosses the plate you're getting the strike.

 

Did I miss a rules change here?

 

Thanks for any help.

[James Walker]

If he doesn't attempt to hit the ball and its out of the zone, it is a ball.

[Trakes2]

THIS^^^

[James Walker]

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—

(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;

© Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;

(d) Is bunted foul;

(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;

(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or

(g) Becomes a foul tip.

Rule book definition of a strike.

[th3]

except in softball

[James Walker]

except in softball

What is this softball you speak of??

Seriously, didn't know that, but interesting insight as to why this rule myth continues.

[ikeequa]

@James

Then why is a check swing called a strike if the bat crosses the plate? There the batter is also not trying to hit the ball.

[JaxRolo]

We got done smart folks on here. I agree with everything said so far!

[th3]

@James

Then why is a check swing called a strike if the bat crosses the plate? There the batter is also not trying to hit the ball.

It should only be called a strike if the umpire thinks he's offering. I believe some of the books says that "while the umpire can use the bat crossing the plate as a guide, the determination should be based on if the batter is making an attempt"

[Mike Prince]

The key is in the definition for a strike as James has already posted.  The judgement of a checked swing or strike is not where the bat is, but whether the batter aborted his attempt to strike at the ball before it is judged a valid attempt (in this case a strike).

 

Similarly on a bunt attempt, if it is judged that there was no attempt to strike at the ball (the OP sitch), by definition this cannot be a strike unless the pitch itself passes through the strike zone.  The position of the bat in relation to the plate is not what determines an attempt, it is what the batter does with the bat once he squares.  In reality the bat is normally in front of the plate (not over it)  If the bat moves towards the pitch, then get the strike call regardless of where the pitch is.

[James Walker]

@James

Then why is a check swing called a strike if the bat crosses the plate? There the batter is also not trying to hit the ball.

He is trying to hit the ball, hence the half swing. Weather or not he stopped his swing in time for it to be a checked swing is what needs to be judged, not that the bat crossed the plate. Most smart coaches ( not many of these, but there are some) teach their kids to leave it out because pulling back could be interpreted as an attempt to bunt the ball. For example, an inside pitch. You are taught as a player to pull the bat back into your body and turn away slightly. In this sit, it could look like you are trying to hit the ball.

[grayhawk]

Only the NCAA actually defines what constitutes an attempt. They say it's when the barrel of the bat passes the batter's front hip (notice the plate isn't mentioned).

[Guest 1omega94]

Yep no attempt by the batter to hit the ball ...is a ball if it is not in the strike zone and a strike if it's in the strike zone. Key words must be an attempt by the batter to hit the ball

[Just-Call-It]

As painful as it is, and belive me - it hurts inside to even say the word 'ball' (dirty word imo) it is in the game of baseball. But believe me - if I could call it a strike - I'm happy to do so and smile everytime I do when on the dish in that other sport they play with that yellow ball - as long as I can still hear myslef think with all that racket coming from the dugouts...

[grayhawk]

As painful as it is, and belive me - it hurts inside to even say the word 'ball' (dirty word imo) it is in the game of baseball. But believe me - if I could call it a strike - I'm happy to do so and smile everytime I do when on the dish in that other sport they play with that yellow ball - as long as I can still hear myslef think with all that racket coming from the dugouts...

 

Interesting choice of screen names then...

[Just-Call-It]

 

As painful as it is, and belive me - it hurts inside to even say the word 'ball' (dirty word imo) it is in the game of baseball. But believe me - if I could call it a strike - I'm happy to do so and smile everytime I do when on the dish in that other sport they play with that yellow ball - as long as I can still hear myslef think with all that racket coming from the dugouts...

 

Interesting choice of screen names then...

 

Exactly... thus my inner struggle.

[calablue]

If he doesn't attempt to hit the ball and its out of the zone, it is a ball.

I once posed this question to my aasigner after 3 other umpires tried to convince me that this is a strike.  So, if the batters squares to bunt, the pitcher pitches the ball over the backstop and the batter doesn't pull the bat back ( and specified that the batter remained a statue) it is a strike?"   His response..."Umpire judgement"......me......."Whaaaaaaatt???"

[calablue]

I've run across something I've never heard before, and need your expert opinion.

 

Is it possible to square around to bunt, not pull the bat back and get a ball called?

Here's the exact situation as I heard it:

The batter squares to bunt and holds his bat OVER the plate belt high. The pitch comes in and is caught by the catcher, but the umpire calls ball because the pitch was too high and out of the strike zone. Supposedly the umpire didn't call a strike because the batter didn't try to make contact with the ball even though he never pulled the bat back.

 

I always thought if your bat was over the plate when the pitch came in, it was a strike. A check swing is also not an attempt to hit the ball, but if your bat crosses the plate you're getting the strike.

 

Did I miss a rules change here?

 

Thanks for any help.

So what do you think would be the reason for calling this same pitch a strike if the batter was squared to bunt while standing in the very back of the batters box and his bat was well behind the plate instead of over the plate??

[Stan W.]

Merely holding the bat over the zone does not constitute a swing. To be a strike, the batter must make an offer at the pitch.....that would involve moving the bat towards the ball in an effort to hit the pitch....

 

Now, the judgment of whether or not a batter does so is solely the umpires decision....

 

Applicable rules....

 

NFHS Fed 7.2.1b In bunting, any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate is a strike. The mere holding of the bat in the  strike zone is not an attempt to bunt. 

 

NCAA/OBR- Official interp- A bat left in the strike zone is not, in itself, an offer at a pitch. However the intent of the batter should declare whether he offered at the pitch.

[KLAH316]

I had this same issue with parents and even a coach just a few weeks ago.....

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/55925-thats-a-strike-he-didnt-pull-the-bat-back/

 

I wish there was a requirement that the parents/coaches read the rules!!

[BT_Blue]

Only the NCAA actually defines what constitutes an attempt. They say it's when the barrel of the bat passes the batter's front hip (notice the plate isn't mentioned).

This is what I mentally use to judge a check swing.