HBP or foul ball for bunter?

[ZOOX]

Right handed batter square to bunt.  F1 delivers an inside pitch and the batter attempts to pull back his bat (pitch is NOT in the strike zone).  The pitch strikes the batter's right hand and the bat simultaneously, causing the ball to ricochet to the backstop.  Plate umpire declares "foul".  Offensive coach comes out to challenge call.  Plate umpire consults with his partner who adds that the batter was pulling back and did not attempt to bunt the pitch.  Batter ultimately awarded first for the HBP.  Correct call? What is the FED ruling reference?? Does it matter that the batter wasn't attempting to bunt the pitch? Can't find the rule or a corresponding case play.  Thanks in advance.

[umpstu]

2 hours ago, ZOOX said:

Right handed batter square to bunt.  F1 delivers an inside pitch and the batter attempts to pull back his bat (pitch is NOT in the strike zone).  The pitch strikes the batter's right hand and the bat simultaneously, causing the ball to ricochet to the backstop.  Plate umpire declares "foul".  Offensive coach comes out to challenge call.  Plate umpire consults with his partner who adds that the batter was pulling back and did not attempt to bunt the pitch.  Batter ultimately awarded first for the HBP.  Correct call? What is the FED ruling reference?? Does it matter that the batter wasn't attempting to bunt the pitch? Can't find the rule or a corresponding case play.  Thanks in advance.

Well, if he's not trying to bunt the ball then it comes down to if he was hit by the pitch before it hit the bat?  If he was hit before the bat was then he gets first base.

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, ZOOX said:

Right handed batter square to bunt.  F1 delivers an inside pitch and the batter attempts to pull back his bat (pitch is NOT in the strike zone).  The pitch strikes the batter's right hand and the bat simultaneously, causing the ball to ricochet to the backstop.  Plate umpire declares "foul".  Offensive coach comes out to challenge call.  Plate umpire consults with his partner who adds that the batter was pulling back and did not attempt to bunt the pitch.  Batter ultimately awarded first for the HBP.  Correct call? What is the FED ruling reference?? Does it matter that the batter wasn't attempting to bunt the pitch? Can't find the rule or a corresponding case play.  Thanks in advance.

The umpire needs to decide which happened first; there's no provision in the rules for this happening simultaneously.

 

Even from here, though, I'm pretty sure it hit the hands first.

[aaluck]

This is nearly the same situation I had last year (or maybe year before).  If I remember correctly the point was made by a few on here that once its called a strike, here foul ball, it stays a strike.  In our situation we did the same thing in the OP and put the runner on first.

Since that time I have made it a habit that if I'm not sure what got hit or what hit what, the only thing I call is "time", not strike, not foul ball, etc. Go meet with partner and make a decision from there.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. ZOOX, your question is not one that can be answered simply. The following is kind of a patching together of several blogs and articles from online sources who wrote about HBP issues.

One of the toughest challenges for a plate umpire is figuring out if the hands or the bat were hit by a pitch. Many times, the area of the bat on which the batter’s hands rest as he is swinging can be blocked from the umpire’s view by the batter’s movement to hit the pitch; the catcher can also get in the way. But the pitch hit something…now what?

Well, we can start by saying that the hands are NOT part of the bat. If the pitched ball hits the batter’s hands, it is a dead ball immediately and is treated the same as a pitched ball hitting any other part of the batter’s body. As stated before, most of the time this action is not actually seen by the umpire. Therefore this is a situation where the umpire must use more than sight to make the call.

The sound of a pitch hitting a bat is different than the sound of the pitch hitting hands. The batter’s immediate reaction can also help to ascertain if it hit his hand. But an umpire can be fooled by the batter who hesitates and then tries to fake the contact. And just hearing the sound of the ball hitting the bat is not a foolproof clue because both could be hit simultaneously or the ball could hit the hand and deflect to the bat. Due to the physical nature of a round ball it is possible that the pitch could hit both the bat and the batter’s hands.

But which did it hit first? Taking into consideration that the hands are on top of the bat, most of the time it should be ruled a hit batter. As Mr. noumpere posted earlier, when in doubt, the ball hit the hand.

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, ZOOX said:

 Does it matter that the batter wasn't attempting to bunt the pitch? 

If the umpire's judgment is the pitch hit the bat first the batter's intent is irrelevant. (usually)** 

Much like the 100+ year argument about whether or not there can be ties in baseball, the same question would apply to whether or not a ball can simultaneously hit the bat and the hand.  I would posit it can, but I don't think the letter of rule would help you...though I think, if you gave me a couple of paragraphs, I could probably make the case that the hand would take precedence, if not based on letter but on spirit of rule.  Otherwise, pick one.   (you don't want to get into a metaphysical debate on the ball diamond)   if in doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the batter.  Don't reward the pitcher for throwing into the batter's box.

**where it would matter is if there were two strikes, because a two-strike foul on a bunt is an out...the ump would have to rule if it was still an attempt to bunt, or if the batter had indeed pulled back.