what would umpires consider a bunt?

[BadMonkeys]

Running forward hold a bat in place is not a swing.

If the bat makes contact with the pitch in this manner does it meet the definition of a bunt?
Would a batter who has 2 strikes and fouls a pitch in this manner be out?

 

[CJ D]

Regardless of the "tips" people use (bat crossing the plate, wrists "break", hands separated, bat moving forward, backward, sideways, yada, yada, yada), none are relevant. A bunt is an attempt to intentionally tap a ball into the infield. A swing is just what it is, the swinging of the bat. Holding a bat up and/or out with the intent to tap the ball is not "swinging" the bat.

Running forward hold a bat in place is not a swing. Running forward and moving the bat to strike the ball is a swing no matter how short or abbreviated, fast or slow, it may be.

Lol. I had this exact thing happen to us on Saturday night. 2 strikes, batter runs through the zone with bat out to bunt. She fouled it. Plate umpire called foul ball. I called time just to very politely get a clarification. He asked field ump. Field ump said foul ball. I bit my tongue and said thanks and walked back into dugout. Between innings I asked for better clarification. Plate ump said he thought girl was swinging but held up and actually checked her swing. I had no problem and thanked him for the explanation. Field ump who umps way too many of our games from behind the plate said that if a girl holds a bat in a bunt position and runs through the zone that is considered a swing because the bat moves through. She has to be stationary for a bunt. He used the lack of a "slap bunt" definition as the reason there are no slap bunts. I will certainly use this to our advantage when he is behind the plate. Lol.

 

[darken]

Not sure if you are trying to indicate the batter was showing bunt or not with 2 strikes. Regardless, even if she was, trying to get out of the way of a pitch is not longer attempting to bunt the ball and I would have nothing more than a foul ball.

Right, the batter is not showing bunt - just trying to get out of the way.

Thanks!

 

[BretMan]

Right, the batter is not showing bunt - just trying to get out of the way.

By rule, a bunt must be an intentiional act by a batter. If the ball hits the bat while the batter is ducking or diving out of the way, with no intent to hit the ball, then it can't be a bunt.

It is, however, a batted ball. Whatever happens next is the same as on any other batted ball. In this case, the result was a foul ball and since it wasn't a bunt attempt it's not strike three. Just a plain old foul ball.

 

[MTR]

Lol. I had this exact thing happen to us on Saturday night. 2 strikes, batter runs through the zone with bat out to bunt. She fouled it. Plate umpire called foul ball. I called time just to very politely get a clarification. He asked field ump. Field ump said foul ball. I bit my tongue and said thanks and walked back into dugout. Between innings I asked for better clarification. Plate ump said he thought girl was swinging but held up and actually checked her swing. I had no problem and thanked him for the explanation. Field ump who umps way too many of our games from behind the plate said that if a girl holds a bat in a bunt position and runs through the zone that is considered a swing because the bat moves through. She has to be stationary for a bunt. He used the lack of a "slap bunt" definition as the reason there are no slap bunts. I will certainly use this to our advantage when he is behind the plate. Lol.

Well, it is a foul ball, there is no question about that.

Whether the batter would be declared out all depends on whether it is a bunt or not. But again, you have umpires offering justifications that simply do not exist in the rule or definitions of a bunt. If an umpire cannot tell the difference between a bunt and a swing, s/he needs to find a sport that does not include a bat.

 

[MTR]

If the bat makes contact with the pitch in this manner does it meet the definition of a bunt?
Would a batter who has 2 strikes and fouls a pitch in this manner be out?

Probably. Obviously, it would be something I'd have to see.