Bunt Attempt? Then Foul?

[Curtis Kent]

Fed rules, 0-2 count. A batter squares to bunt, but the pitch is heading right towards the batter. The batter does not pull the bat back as he is trying to get out of the way, but he clearly is not offering at the pitch so a bunt attempt is not ruled. However, the pitch ends up hitting the bat. Umpire says that since he clearly was not offering a bunt, it was not a bunt attempt and this is just an ordinary foul ball. Therefore, instead of the batter being out because of a bunt foul on 2 strikes, the batter is back up with an 0-2 count. Is this correct?

[Gfoley4]

I'd say this would still be a bunt attempt if he still had the barrel out there in a bunt position. If he moved it inside as to get out of the way, I'd say foul ball. Someone else might have an official interp of this

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Curtis Kent said:

Fed rules, 0-2 count. A batter squares to bunt, but the pitch is heading right towards the batter. The batter does not pull the bat back as he is trying to get out of the way, but he clearly is not offering at the pitch so a bunt attempt is not ruled. However, the pitch ends up hitting the bat. Umpire says that since he clearly was not offering a bunt, it was not a bunt attempt and this is just an ordinary foul ball. Therefore, instead of the batter being out because of a bunt foul on 2 strikes, the batter is back up with an 0-2 count. Is this correct?

I vote correct.

 

Bunt definition says "intentionally met"

This wasn't

[Scombs]

A couple of points on this.

 None of the rules were written to screw a player out of an at-bat or for the purpose of benefiting one team or another. You should question any time a coaches interpretation of a rule benefits his team so obviously.
 His attempt to bunt obviously ended when his priority shifted to not getting hit.  One key part of this rule is "an Attempt to Bunt".  

[maven]

6 minutes ago, Scombs said:

 His attempt to bunt obviously ended when his priority shifted to not getting hit.  One key part of this rule is "an Attempt to Bunt".  

I agree with this point. The umpire knew the definition of a bunt, and it sounds as if he judged it correctly.

6 minutes ago, Scombs said:

 None of the rules were written to screw a player out of an at-bat or for the purpose of benefiting one team or another. You should question any time a coaches interpretation of a rule benefits his team so obviously.

I disagree with this point. The rules aren't written with a priority on "screw-a-team avoidance." We don't want to "officiate to an outcome," as if we could gaze into the crystal ball, determine what the outcome of the game should be, and rule on a situation accordingly. Coaches sometimes think this way, as you suggest, but that's not a good reason for umpires to do it (nor reason necessarily to be suspicious).

Know the rule, judge the situation accordingly, and let the chips fall where they may.

[stkjock]

same scenario, ball stays fair, fielded and BR thrown out, or R1 thrown out....  then ruled not a bunt attempt.....and dead ball (he posts sarcastically) ???

just one of those quirky rules that adjudicates the play depending on judgement?

[maven]

3 minutes ago, stkjock said:

same scenario, ball stays fair, fielded and BR thrown out, or R1 thrown out....  then ruled not a bunt attempt.....and dead ball (he posts sarcastically) ???

just one of those quirky rules that adjudicates the play depending on judgement?

I guess I don't see the point of sarcasm here, especially as someone reading might be confused. Why in the world would anyone think that ruling a fair batted ball not a bunt make it dead? What's quirky about a fair ball being live and in play?

[Mister B]

What's the ruling on the ball hitting an unswung bat and staying fair if the batter is getting out of the way of a pitch? 

If it goes foul, it's called a foul ball, if it goes fair, I would think it should be a live, fair ball. 

[BT_Blue]

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

What's the ruling on the ball hitting an unswung bat and staying fair if the batter is getting out of the way of a pitch? 

If it goes foul, it's called a foul ball, if it goes fair, I would think it should be a live, fair ball. 

Yuppers. Think about it the same way you would a batter that ducks at an inside pitch but doesn't bring the bat down with him. Ball hits bat and rolls into fair territory. Fair ball, right?

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

What's the ruling on the ball hitting an unswung bat and staying fair if the batter is getting out of the way of a pitch? 

If it goes foul, it's called a foul ball, if it goes fair, I would think it should be a live, fair ball. 

Of course.  I have no idea what this has to do with the OP.

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

I'd say this would still be a bunt attempt if he still had the barrel out there in a bunt position. If he moved it inside as to get out of the way, I'd say foul ball. Someone else might have an official interp of this

Well, though this is wrong, something like this happened to my teammate once.  He squared to bunt, and the pitch came inside and hit him right in the can.  Umpire called it a strike.  The umpire ruled that when he jumped back to avoid the pitch the barrel of the bat moved forward, toward the ball/pitcher, making it an attempt.  He even went so far to say that it didn't matter if it was involuntary - the direction the bat moved made it an attempt.

 

[Mister B]

2 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Of course.  I have no idea what this has to do with the OP.

More of a response to stkjock's scenario and clarification for myself. The ball in the OP is still a batted ball regardless of whether or not it was judged to be a bunt or not. 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, stkjock said:

same scenario, ball stays fair, fielded and BR thrown out, or R1 thrown out....  then ruled not a bunt attempt.....and dead ball (he posts sarcastically) ???

just one of those quirky rules that adjudicates the play depending on judgement?

Not really quirky, it's just not a bunt, and certainly not a sacrifice (though a forgiving score keeper might see it differently).  Plain old ground ball out.

[Gfoley4]

20 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Well, though this is wrong, something like this happened to my teammate once.  He squared to bunt, and the pitch came inside and hit him right in the can.  Umpire called it a strike.  The umpire ruled that when he jumped back to avoid the pitch the barrel of the bat moved forward, toward the ball/pitcher, making it an attempt.  He even went so far to say that it didn't matter if it was involuntary - the direction the bat moved made it an attempt.

 

By moving it inside, I mean rotating clockwise as the batter turns to avoid the pitch

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Of course.  I have no idea what this has to do with the OP.

 

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

More of a response to stkjock's scenario and clarification for myself. The ball in the OP is still a batted ball regardless of whether or not it was judged to be a bunt or not. 

Yes -- I thought stkjock's post was quoted.  Probably user error. 

[kylehutson]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

The umpire ruled that when he jumped back to avoid the pitch the barrel of the bat moved forward, toward the ball/pitcher, making it an attempt.

This is a judgment call on whether he attempted to hit the ball. If he's really just trying to avoid being hit, no way I'm calling that an attempt, regardless what way the bat ends up moving. Now if he's trying to avoid being hit and jabs the bat down in self defense, maybe?

[Senor Azul]

Actually, the Federation definition does not use the term intentionally met (OBR and NCAA do use the term in their definition). Here’s the definition that appears in the 2016 rule book:

“A bunt is a fair ball in which the batter does not swing to hit the ball, but holds the bat in the path of the ball to tap it slowly to the infield. If an attempt to bunt is a foul ball, it is treated the same as any other foul ball, except that if the attempt is by a batter who has two strikes, such batter is out as in 7-4-1e.”

Some guidance is given in the NFHS case book play 7.2.1B. It says, …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. (10-1-4a)

[stkjock]

9 hours ago, maven said:

I guess I don't see the point of sarcasm here, especially as someone reading might be confused. Why in the world would anyone think that ruling a fair batted ball not a bunt make it dead? What's quirky about a fair ball being live and in play?

Scarasm was because of course it's a fair ball and in play.  The quirky part is the same action on the batter's has two very different rulings. 

[Donny7]

Strictly the umpires judgement. If he had ruled it an attempted bunt, batter is out. He ruled it was NOT an attempted bunt, its a foul ball and we still have an 0-2 count.

[ElkOil]

On 2/22/2017 at 10:45 PM, Gfoley4 said:

I'd say this would still be a bunt attempt if he still had the barrel out there in a bunt position. If he moved it inside as to get out of the way, I'd say foul ball. Someone else might have an official interp of this

The rules don't recognize a "bunt position" per se, so this isn't relevant to the issue at hand. The determination the umpire needs to make is if the batter attempted to contact the ball with the bat. The act of squaring to bunt does NOT constitute a bunt attempt or an offer at the pitch. If the batter squares to bunt but doesn't attempt to contact the ball, and the ball moves through the strike zone, I'll call a strike and say "on the pitch!" or if he attempted to contact the ball and missed, I'll say "he offered!"

This is one of those situations we need to be better at as umpires. There exists too much confusion about what is and isn't a bunt attempt.