Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

The Balyhooed Bunt Attempt


rickh150
The Red squares to Bunt, and this is key... pulls back, yet it hits his bat for a foul and presumably the third strike. I believe the umps were saying that he did not INTeND to offer and that is why he was allowed to continue the at bat. Does anyone know the Rule? He squared, but he definetely didn't want to make contact with that one. Does intention count? Looks like he tried to get out of the way more than anything, but he was in bunting stance when contact was made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

He is obviously re-coiling but the bat is still well within the strike zone and he made contact. I don't know the rule, but my follow up question to those who are saying he was no longer offering would be 'if his intent is to pull the bat back and not make contact but he does, how is that any different than the intent of a batter who starts to swing but then decides not to and "offers" " ... the latter no longer has the intent to swing but is punished if he can't check. Without knowing the rule of "intent" this seems like a pretty easy strikeout to me.

 

Dl0Rw3aV4AAkbZb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a strikeout, no question about it - as soon as the hitter squares to bunt, unless he gets his hands back to the typical hitting position on the bat he should be considered intending to bunt and a foul tip off the bat in that situation no matter how it happens should lead to a strikeout. Williams made a great pitch in that spot even if it was in off the plate, as the book on a hitter looking to sac bunt is typically come up and in hard (toughest pitch to get down).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only a botched call but like another poster pointed out, some of the umpires didn't even know he hit the ball with his bat. I mean, come on. Pay attention.

 

I will say it is nice that a play like this didn't define the game for the Brewers. Some of their past teams would've rolled over and died that inning. Refreshing.

"This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

 

This. As frustrating as it was, it was the correct call. He clearly pulled back and wasn't trying to make contact anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know the correct call but the Umpire gave this explanation

 

I guess that seems right although, as the pitch was coming inside I felt he continued to offer at the pitch and at the last split second started retreating and then the ball hit the bat. Very odd play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

 

My argument would then be, what would have happened had the ball actually landed fair instead of ricocheting foul? Since Lorenzen apparently didn't intentionally try to bunt it fair and it accidentally did, does he get another pitch? Or ice cream? To me squaring to bunt on a pitch sells out you are intending to bunt, and the only way you no longer are is if you completely pull the bat back and resume a hitting stance as the pitch is delivered. It's on the hitter to get the bat out of the way if they don't want it to hit the ball, no matter where the pitch is thrown.

 

It's a strikeout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

 

My argument would then be, what would have happened had the ball actually landed fair instead of ricocheting foul? Since Lorenzen apparently didn't intentionally try to bunt it fair and it accidentally did, does he get another pitch? Or ice cream? To me squaring to bunt on a pitch sells out you are intending to bunt, and the only way you no longer are is if you completely pull the bat back and resume a hitting stance as the pitch is delivered. It's on the hitter to get the bat out of the way if they don't want it to hit the ball, no matter where the pitch is thrown.

 

It's a strikeout.

 

well i'm fairly certain that ANY ball off the bat that ends up in fair territory is a ball-in-play....for example, if you throw at a batters head, and he ducks but doesnt get the bat out of the way and it goes fair, the ball is played as such....intention doesnt matter on a fair ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was livid at the time and thinking about it, while I don't agree with the call, I don't think it was as horrible as we all felt.

 

Let's say the ball misses the bat, would that have been a strike? I don't think so because he was pulling back and didn't make an attempt to bunt it. Therefore if he wasn't attempting to bunt, the ball hitting the bat is just a foul ball with 2 strikes, same as a swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

It looks like Lorenzen may have been using the bat to prevent getting hit so he was kind of intending to meet with the bat to prevent getting hit in the face. So by rule maybe still a strikeout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

It looks like Lorenzen may have been using the bat to prevent getting hit so he was kind of intending to meet with the bat to prevent getting hit in the face. So by rule maybe still a strikeout.

 

There's very little time to react in a situation like that. He was trying to not get hit while pulling the bat back, I don't think he was using the bat to prevent getting hit, that just happened. But let's assume you're right, and that he did make contact intentionally to protect himself. If that's the case, then the intent still wasn't to bunt, and so it's a foul ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

 

My argument would then be, what would have happened had the ball actually landed fair instead of ricocheting foul? Since Lorenzen apparently didn't intentionally try to bunt it fair and it accidentally did, does he get another pitch? Or ice cream? To me squaring to bunt on a pitch sells out you are intending to bunt, and the only way you no longer are is if you completely pull the bat back and resume a hitting stance as the pitch is delivered. It's on the hitter to get the bat out of the way if they don't want it to hit the ball, no matter where the pitch is thrown.

 

It's a strikeout.

 

Or... what would they have ruled if the ball struck his bat more squarely, and traveled up the first base line, but rolled just foul? The ruling should be the same.... strikeout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying I agree with this, but according to this article, the correct call was made.

 

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

 

The guy writing this article appears to be dumb. Just because he was trying to pull the bat back doesn't mean it isn't a bunt attempt. The bat was clearly over the plate, so he offered at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why so many people are talking about the bat's position relative to the plate. That means absolutely nothing.

 

The reason I consider it, not much different than a check swing. If he didn't offer at it, then it wouldn't be an intentional attempt. So let's say he pulled the bat way back so it would have been a ball had he not made contact...if the ball struck the bat in that position, it would no longer be an intentional attempt to bunt and could justifiably be ruled a foul ball. That's not the case though. Here, he has the bat in the bunt position over the plate...he starts trying to pull it back but in fact does not, so it remains an intentional attempt to bunt and should be an out. I think you have to assume it remains an intentional attempt to bunt until he actually pulls the bat back. Trying to pull the bat back does not equal pulling the bat back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...