To my untrained eye seems a right hander who begins his steps toward first while drag bunting and a low pitch hits his foot has in a way intentionally put himself in the path of the ball and should not get a walk - which is what the ump awarded. Why is this? Had he not been bunting the ball would have bounced on or slightly to the right of the plate (from the batters POV). He did not pull back.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
To my untrained eye seems a right hander who begins his steps toward first while drag bunting and a low pitch hits his foot has in a way intentionally put himself in the path of the ball and should not get a walk - which is what the ump awarded. Why is this? Had he not been bunting the ball would have bounced on or slightly to the right of the plate (from the batters POV). He did not pull back.
If umpire says the batter offered, should be no HBP.
On a drag bunt does "offering" become a gray area? Does stepping toward first constitute offering or is it all about what he does with the bat?
On a drag bunt does "offering" become a gray area? Does stepping toward first constitute offering or is it all about what he does with the bat?
I don't know if it's gray, but it's umpire judgment. I'm sure a coach or umpire can comment on his experience with it/how he sees it. You can't dig half a hole, you can't take half a swing, so it's what the blue says. Sorry, from Houston and listened to too many Bum and Wade Philips interviews.
I think in theory bat position should be the only factor in determining offer/no offer, not position of body or feet. But obviously this is a subjective call in practice. Difficult for a batter to step forward aggressively with commitment to drag bunt and then clearly pull the bat back. If offering at the pitch, then it does sound like should have been a strike call and not HBP... If I'm following your description accurately.
Just moving towards the ball does not constitute an attempt nor does holding the bat out over the plate. He must actually attempt to hit the ball by intentionally moving the bat into the balls path.
As for the OP, did the batter move into the ball or did the ball come at the batter? If it's the first, I'm keeping him in the box. If it's the latter, I may award him first providing that it's not in the strike zone.
Just moving towards the ball does not constitute an attempt nor does holding the bat out over the plate. He must actually attempt to hit the ball by intentionally moving the bat into the balls path.
As for the OP, did the batter move into the ball or did the ball come at the batter? If it's the first, I'm keeping him in the box. If it's the latter, I may award him first providing that it's not in the strike zone.
Forest Ump... funny screen name! Agree with what you wrote...Moving the bat into the path of the ball is necessary to constitute an attempt. But as biggerpapi mentioned, I think a lot of umps look for some sort of noticeable bat movement toward the the ball... A jab. And short of that, they often rule it as no attempt. To me that's not accurate because good bunting technique dictates the batter should NOT jab at the ball at all... Should simply "catch" the top half of the ball with the barrel. If the bat isn't pulled back away from the path of the ball... And I mean the rough path... Then personally I like to see a strike called.
Just moving towards the ball does not constitute an attempt nor does holding the bat out over the plate. He must actually attempt to hit the ball by intentionally moving the bat into the balls path.
As for the OP, did the batter move into the ball or did the ball come at the batter? If it's the first, I'm keeping him in the box. If it's the latter, I may award him first providing that it's not in the strike zone.
Forest Ump... funny screen name! Agree with what you wrote...Moving the bat into the path of the ball is necessary to constitute an attempt. But as biggerpapi mentioned, I think a lot of umps look for some sort of noticeable bat movement toward the the ball... A jab. And short of that, they often rule it as no attempt. To me that's not accurate because good bunting technique dictates the batter should NOT jab at the ball at all... Should simply "catch" the top half of the ball with the barrel. If the bat isn't pulled back away from the path of the ball... And I mean the rough path... Then personally I like to see a strike called.
This question will ultimately be umpire's judgement and also YHTBT (I think that's the right acronym) but I do agree with Forrest. As for what's an attempt, in this case the OP refers to a drag bunt, which as we all know is a bunt for a base hit. I think in most cases that's going to be judged as an attempt to strike the ball unless the bat is pulled back, which is hard to do -- much like deciding to swing and then holding up. Sacs are different. If the batter squares to bunt and stays in that position without making any other move to strike the ball, then yes, you should call a ball if the pitch is out of the zone.
I'd also note to the OP, that just stepping forward in the box during an attempt to drag bunt is not the actual act of trying to bunt the ball. If the batter steps forward and the ball hits him clearly outside of the strike zone he's going to get the base 99% of the time.
So starting with the OP, in baseball, the rules set the framework and the onus falls on the umpire to interpret the rules in a game situation...
In my reading the OP, its clearly a HTBT……..but I’d probably have a dead ball and I'm keeping the batter at the plate....seeing it may change that but…...
As to offering on a drag bunt, it’s up to the umpire to decide if it was an attempt.....In my years, many "drag bunt" attempts are real efforts to contact a ball and some are just shields for a stealing runner.....those times there may not be an offer with a bat, but may bring an interference call......
As to what constitutes an attempt...Merely holding the bat over the zone does not constitute a swing. To be a strike on an attempt, 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 umpire’s decision....if you want to take the judgment of whether the batter made an attempt or not out of the umpires hands, then by all means have the player pull the bat back...
The call of strike because the batter did not pull back is sand lot baseball lore and not backed by any rule…something heard from the parents in the stands …one of the myths that never seem to die….like “hands are part of the bat” or “ties go to the runner”. From an umpire point of view, hearing those myths are one of those things that once said to you, you know what level of rules knowledge you are dealing with.
Now, I believe in softball that it may very well be a strike but not in baseball….maybe that’s where it came from.
The term “Jab” in this thread is a total misnomer and appears nowhere in any rulebook or in any Umpire interp manual or lexicon. No umpire would ever use this term to describe an offer….to quote fed rules, “an offer on a bunt is any movement of the bat toward the ball when the ball is over or near the plate”.
Applicable rules....
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.
If you connect that OBR definition to the OBR definition of a bunt you will get the basis of the Official Interpretation.
A bunt is: a batted ball not swung at but intentionally met with the bat and tapped slowly within the infield.
One definition of a strike is a: "Struck at by the batter and is missed"
The commonality in the 2 is that the bat must be moved by the batter intentionally....Now, understand that if a batter holds the bat out and does not move the bat at all, on a pitch inside the strike zone, it will not be a strike for offering at the pitch, but will be a strike for the pitch itself being in the zone....
It's not hard to tell if the batter is trying to bunt the ball or screen the catcher. You know it when you see it.
PIAA actually explained it very well. When an umpire says jab toward the ball, it is a bad way of explaining it. As you say, you are more catching the ball as apposed to jabbing at it. The important thing we are judging is did he move the bat intentionally at the ball. Softball changed their rules about four years ago to make holding the bat still in the zone is a strike. Not a good change in my opinion.
In my reading the OP, its clearly a HTBT……..but I’d probably have a dead ball and I'm keeping the batter at the plate....seeing it may change that but…...
Agreed, and we add a ball to the count. So if the count before the pitch was 3-x, then the "hbp" becomes ball 4 -- so the batter is awarded first on the walk, which is what the OP said happened.
BIGGER
I'll be honest, I've never read those rules until today. Or if I did, it just didn't register what was being said. I'd still like to argue "movement of the bat towards the ball" but at least now I understand where the umpires are coming from.
Sometimes we fake-bunt when a runner is stealing. Bring the bat back as the ball crosses the plate in an effort to potentially distract the catcher. Heck, now I know you can just leave the bat out there, MAKE SURE you don't move it and that might be even more distracting.
It's just a weird rule. Guess I'll have to get used to it.
BUT if you do interfere with the catcher's play on an advancing runner "BOBR" Batter Out Runner Returns
