Foul ball or out ?

[Guest Hank]

0-2 count. The batter squares to bunt. Pitch is running inside, and batter pulls the bat back trying to get out of the way. But the ball hits the bat. Is the batter out for a foul bunt with two strikes?

[MadMax]

It’s a foul ball. The batter setting up for a bunt attempt is not yet a bunt. His pulling the bat back is no longer a bunt attempt. The pitch hitting the bat, in such a manner, is akin to the pitch hitting the knob on a pitch up-and-in, or hitting the bat while the batter is dropping it while ducking a pitch behind him. Are those regarded as swing attempts? No. However, once the pitch hits the bat (first), the ball becomes subject to a fair/foul judgement like any other batted ball. 

[beerguy55]

no - though I've seen a few overzealous umps call it, and a few more idiot coaches argue for it.

It needs to be a bunt attempt...pulling the bat back isn't an attempt any more.

It's a plain old foul ball.

[Young_Ump]

Here's the situation at the big league level

https://www.closecallsports.com/2018/08/ask-uefl-foul-bunt-or-ball-fouled-away.html

[Mussgrass]

20 hours ago, Young_Ump said:

Here's the situation at the big league level

https://www.closecallsports.com/2018/08/ask-uefl-foul-bunt-or-ball-fouled-away.html

I'm warning you, if you watch it turn the sound down. Gotta love announcers! 

[ArchAngel72]

I have foul as he was not offering at it.  no offer = no attempt . Its no different than if he were standing in the box and dove to get out of the way of a pitch and it hit the bat and went foul. 

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, Young_Ump said:

Here's the situation at the big league level

https://www.closecallsports.com/2018/08/ask-uefl-foul-bunt-or-ball-fouled-away.html

 

While I fully agree with pulling the bat back to withdraw the bunt attempt ... I will say I'd accept an argument either way in the video.  Technically I suppose he pulled the bat back while he was moving out of the way of the pitch, so OK.  However he didn't make a specific movement to pull the bat back, just his body.  I'm not going to fault a call either way there.

Definitely a good case play showing what can happen when you think you explained away that booger and it comes back at you!

[beerguy55]

31 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

While I fully agree with pulling the bat back to withdraw the bunt attempt ... I will say I'd accept an argument either way in the video.  Technically I suppose he pulled the bat back while he was moving out of the way of the pitch, so OK.  However he didn't make a specific movement to pull the bat back, just his body.  I'm not going to fault a call either way there.

Definitely a good case play showing what can happen when you think you explained away that booger and it comes back at you!

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible take.

 

A bunt, by rule and definition, MUST be intentional...if there is no intent there is no bunt...if there is no bunt, there's no third strike foul bunt.

If you think he INTENTIONALLY hit the ball with the bat I'd love to talk to your drug dealer.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. The Man in Blue, did you read the analysis of the play in the video? Here’s the main takeaway—“To recap, a foul bunt requires intent. A foul ball does not require intent.” And nothing about the batter’s action meets the definition of bunt—

2019 OBR definition A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped slowly within the infield.

Aren’t you being perverse or contrary (or as Mr. maven might say--contumacious) for no good reason?

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible take.

 

A bunt, by rule and definition, MUST be intentional...if there is no intent there is no bunt...if there is no bunt, there's no third strike foul bunt.

If you think he INTENTIONALLY hit the ball with the bat I'd love to talk to your drug dealer.

 

I didn't make a case one way or the other ... I said I would expect an argument to made either way.  I didn't say he bunted it intentionally.  I said it is questionable as to whether he withdrew the bat.  (When you Davey Dime Bags, you let me know ... I could use some of the good stuff, man.)

 

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. The Man in Blue, did you read the analysis of the play in the video? Here’s the main takeaway—“To recap, a foul bunt requires intent. A foul ball does not require intent.” And nothing about the batter’s action meets the definition of bunt—

2019 OBR definition A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped slowly within the infield.

Aren’t you being perverse or contrary (or as Mr. maven might say--contumacious) for no good reason?

 

There is no such thing as a "foul bunt".  There are bunts that go foul and thus are foul balls.  So to make the statement "foul bunts require intent, foul balls don't" is an overly reductive statement which is not accurate.

I'm not arguing the call one way or the other.  I'm saying there are arguments that could be made in some codes ... but, so I don't get criticized for mentioning that there are differences between codes (oops, just did) ... 

The OBR definition does not require the batter to intend to hit it anywhere specific.  It only requires intentional contact for a bunt.  One could argue he intentionally pulled the bat back in a position to prevent it from hitting him in the face.  He didn't swing but he made intentional contact.  Bunt?  I am not saying I even like that argument, just that it is presentable.

 

Tangential question for all ... and we'll use OBR.  The batter squares around to bunt.  He holds the bat over the plate and across the middle of the strike zone and watches as the ball sails by outside of the strike zone, narrowly missing the bat.  He neither withdraws the bat nor makes an effort to go after the ball.  What do you have?

[Replacematt]

18 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I didn't make a case one way or the other ... I said I would expect an argument to made either way.  I didn't say he bunted it intentionally.  I said it is questionable as to whether he withdrew the bat.  (When you Davey Dime Bags, you let me know ... I could use some of the good stuff, man.)

 

 

There is no such thing as a "foul bunt".  There are bunts that go foul and thus are foul balls.  So to make the statement "foul bunts require intent, foul balls don't" is an overly reductive statement which is not accurate.

I'm not arguing the call one way or the other.  I'm saying there are arguments that could be made in some codes ... but, so I don't get criticized for mentioning that there are differences between codes (oops, just did) ... 

The OBR definition does not require the batter to intend to hit it anywhere specific.  It only requires intentional contact for a bunt.  One could argue he intentionally pulled the bat back in a position to prevent it from hitting him in the face.  He didn't swing but he made intentional contact.  Bunt?  I am not saying I even like that argument, just that it is presentable.

 

Tangential question for all ... and we'll use OBR.  The batter squares around to bunt.  He holds the bat over the plate and across the middle of the strike zone and watches as the ball sails by outside of the strike zone, narrowly missing the bat.  He neither withdraws the bat nor makes an effort to go after the ball.  What do you have?

This is irrelevant.

No, he did not make intentional contact. 

Ball.

[beerguy55]

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I said I would expect an argument to made either way

No you didn't.

 

20 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I will say I'd accept an argument either way in the video

 

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I didn't say he bunted it intentionally.  I said it is questionable as to whether he withdrew the bat

And by rule and definition that is irrelevant.   If he didn't hit the ball intentionally it can't be ruled a third strike foul bunt.

 

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Tangential question for all ... and we'll use OBR.  The batter squares around to bunt.  He holds the bat over the plate and across the middle of the strike zone and watches as the ball sails by outside of the strike zone, narrowly missing the bat.  He neither withdraws the bat nor makes an effort to go after the ball.  What do you have?

OBR - ball.   But if an ump says he "offered" it would be hard to argue - any twitch could conceivably be judged as an attempt...and it ultimately is a judgment call - it's rare, but I've run across one or two overzealous umps who would call a strike here.

 

I believe there are some softball rule sets where this MAY be called a strike.