The Balyhooed Bunt Attempt

[Jimbo]

Baseball version of the "Tuck Rule"?

[sveumrules]

Trying to pull the bat back does not equal pulling the bat back.

 

If a batter is trying to pull the bat back they are not intending to meet with the ball.

[sveumrules]

Baseball version of the "Tuck Rule"?

 

I think it's fairly cut & dry.

 

Imagine instead that the whole situation played out like this. Peralta is at the plate instead of Lorenzen. The exact same thing happens, only Bill correctly interprets the rule & goes on & on about how we caught a break since Peralta was trying to get out of the way & its then just a foul ball. Peralta homers on the next pitch.

 

No one here would be saying the rule was incorrectly applied & we'd all be laughing at the Reds fans (if there are any left) trying to apply their own interpretation of what a bunt attempt should or shouldn't be.

[BruisedCrew]

Here’s my question. If Lorenzen had done exactly what he did but the ball didn’t hit the bat, but drilled him in the face, do you think he should have been called out because he intended to bunt at the ball and missed for strike 3?

 

I’m in that apparent minority that thinks that was the right call. At the very least, I think there is a real judgment call about whether Lorenzen was attempting to bunt or, to,use the term a lot of people are using, “offered at the pitch”.

[BruisedCrew]

Baseball version of the "Tuck Rule"?

 

I think it's fairly cut & dry.

 

Imagine instead that the whole situation played out like this. Peralta is at the plate instead of Lorenzen. The exact same thing happens, only Bill correctly interprets the rule & goes on & on about how we caught a break since Peralta was trying to get out of the way & its then just a foul ball. Peralta homers on the next pitch.

 

No one here would be saying the rule was incorrectly applied & we'd all be laughing at the Reds fans (if there are any left) trying to apply their own interpretation of what a bunt attempt should or shouldn't be.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

[istanbultaye]

After seeing sveumrules post with the MLB definition of a bunt, I have reluctantly changed my opinion to agree that the correct call was made. But, it is definitely a grey enough area that I wouldn't contradict others opinions on it either.

[KeithStone53151]

Trying to pull the bat back does not equal pulling the bat back.

 

If a batter is trying to pull the bat back they are not intending to meet with the ball.

 

In a normal situation of a swing, if the player tries to stop his swing but can't...it's a swing. I see no difference here. If he tries to pull the bat back but doesn't, he's still in the act of intentionally trying to meet the ball...until the bat is back out of the zone. Otherwise the guy can easily argue upon bunting foul that at the last possible moment, he mentally wanted to not bunt and it should not be a foul bunt.

[tmwiese55]

Here’s my question. If Lorenzen had done exactly what he did but the ball didn’t hit the bat, but drilled him in the face, do you think he should have been called out because he intended to bunt at the ball and missed for strike 3?

 

I’m in that apparent minority that thinks that was the right call. At the very least, I think there is a real judgment call about whether Lorenzen was attempting to bunt or, to,use the term a lot of people are using, “offered at the pitch”.

 

This is a simple smart way to look at it as well. I've probably come down from initial take of 'worst call ever' type view to at least seeing the gray area. But even looking at it this way I still think K because he just didn't get the bat back quickly enough.

[KeithStone53151]

Here’s my question. If Lorenzen had done exactly what he did but the ball didn’t hit the bat, but drilled him in the face, do you think he should have been called out because he intended to bunt at the ball and missed for strike 3?

 

I’m in that apparent minority that thinks that was the right call. At the very least, I think there is a real judgment call about whether Lorenzen was attempting to bunt or, to,use the term a lot of people are using, “offered at the pitch”.

 

This is a simple smart way to look at it as well. I've probably come down from initial take of 'worst call ever' type view to at least seeing the gray area. But even looking at it this way I still think K because he just didn't get the bat back quickly enough.

 

Agreed with tmwiese. You are in the act of intentionally trying to bunt the ball, until the bat is pulled back out of the zone. I don't see any possibility for an argument to the contrary...

[Thurston Fluff]

Anytime an ump has to interpret intent one side is going to be unhappy. I hate rules that require officials to interpret a player's intent. Sometimes it's unavoidable but this in one rule that really shouldn't be all that hard to tweak so umps don't have to decide what someone else was thinking at the time.

[dpapo]

I've seen this occur in the past it's always been called a strikeout. Even the Reds announcers thought it was a strikeout and thought the Reds were getting a break. They called it a strikeout from the start and were as surprised as the Brewers announcers that it wasn't called a strikeout.

Thom Brennaman has been announcing baseball games for 31 years and I believe Jeff Brantley was his announcing partner yesterday who pitched in the majors for 14 years and has been a part of the Reds broadcast for the past 12 years. You would think if the umpires called the played correctly they would have known it or had seen it called that way before at some point.

[dlk9s]

The umpire's explanation made complete sense based on the rule and the definition of a bunt. I actually appreciate the ump detailing it for everyone.

 

My only point of contention would be whether or not the batter was actually trying to get out of the way and not intending to bunt anymore (in which case the call is correct) or if he was getting out of the way, but STILL trying to bunt (in which case the call is incorrect). It's really up to the umpire's interpretation of the action.

[dlk9s]

I've seen this occur in the past it's always been called a strikeout. Even the Reds announcers thought it was a strikeout and thought the Reds were getting a break. They called it a strikeout from the start and were as surprised as the Brewers announcers that it wasn't called a strikeout.

Thom Brennaman has been announcing baseball games for 31 years and I believe Jeff Brantley was his announcing partner yesterday who pitched in the majors for 14 years and has been a part of the Reds broadcast for the past 12 years. You would think if the umpires called the played correctly they would have known it or had seen it called that way before at some point.

 

I do not believe the Reds' announcers are umpires. While umpires obviously make mistakes, I trust they know the rule book better than announcers.

[dlk9s]

Agreed with tmwiese. You are in the act of intentionally trying to bunt the ball, until the bat is pulled back out of the zone. I don't see any possibility for an argument to the contrary...

 

If you square around to bunt, see the ball screaming right at you, try to turn/dodge/duck/whatever, but the bat stays in the zone, it can easily be interpreted as not intentionally trying to bunt. You WERE trying to bunt initially, but you changed your action to trying to avoid being hit.

 

As I said in a previous post and as other have mentioned, the intent is up to interpretation, but it is certainly easy to see how a bat could be in the zone, yet the batter isn't intentionally trying to bunt.

[AKCheesehead]

I finally saw the replay, after reading the thread. To me, it's a strikeout. I think to say he's no longer attempting a bunt might possibly be true, but it's also a stretch. It's an assumption. It's giving Lorenzen the benefit of the doubt. Especially since many successful bunts do involve pulling the bat back in a similar motion in order to deaden the ball. I think it's a bad call. Fortunately, it didn't cost us the game.

[KeithStone53151]

Agreed with tmwiese. You are in the act of intentionally trying to bunt the ball, until the bat is pulled back out of the zone. I don't see any possibility for an argument to the contrary...

 

If you square around to bunt, see the ball screaming right at you, try to turn/dodge/duck/whatever, but the bat stays in the zone, it can easily be interpreted as not intentionally trying to bunt. You WERE trying to bunt initially, but you changed your action to trying to avoid being hit.

 

As I said in a previous post and as other have mentioned, the intent is up to interpretation, but it is certainly easy to see how a bat could be in the zone, yet the batter isn't intentionally trying to bunt.

 

I do see your point, but doesn't that scenario seem wildly ridiculous? How can you be squared to bunt with the bat in the zone and not actually trying to bunt? If it's in the zone, you are in the act of trying to bunt. Black and white. Just like if you swing the bat and try to stop, if the bat crosses the zone...it's offering at the ball and is a swinging strike. I really don't see an argument to the contrary. Otherwise any batter that ever bunts foul for strike 3 can argue they changed their mind at the last second and it shouldn't be strike 3.

 

The real problem is the rule needs to be re-written to avoid the types of interpretations many of you are making.

[jerichoholicninja]

Agreed with tmwiese. You are in the act of intentionally trying to bunt the ball, until the bat is pulled back out of the zone. I don't see any possibility for an argument to the contrary...

 

If you square around to bunt, see the ball screaming right at you, try to turn/dodge/duck/whatever, but the bat stays in the zone, it can easily be interpreted as not intentionally trying to bunt. You WERE trying to bunt initially, but you changed your action to trying to avoid being hit.

 

As I said in a previous post and as other have mentioned, the intent is up to interpretation, but it is certainly easy to see how a bat could be in the zone, yet the batter isn't intentionally trying to bunt.

 

I do see your point, but doesn't that scenario seem wildly ridiculous? How can you be squared to bunt with the bat in the zone and not actually trying to bunt? If it's in the zone, you are in the act of trying to bunt. Black and white. Just like if you swing the bat and try to stop, if the bat crosses the zone...it's offering at the ball and is a swinging strike. I really don't see an argument to the contrary. Otherwise any batter that ever bunts foul for strike 3 can argue they changed their mind at the last second and it shouldn't be strike 3.

 

The real problem is the rule needs to be re-written to avoid the types of interpretations many of you are making.

 

I don't think a rule needs to be re-written due to something that happens once every decade or so. In my 20+ years of playing, watching, and coaching baseball I've never seen that before last night. I hate that the call went the way it did but I accept the umpire's explanation and understand how it could be seen the other way.

[trwi7]

I do see your point, but doesn't that scenario seem wildly ridiculous? How can you be squared to bunt with the bat in the zone and not actually trying to bunt? If it's in the zone, you are in the act of trying to bunt.

 

He was in the act of trying to bunt when the pitch was thrown. As the pitch was coming in though he moved the bat and himself back to avoid getting hit. Just imagine that pitch is like 4 more inches closer to the plate. He would see it was a bad pitch and just pull the bat back. This time however the pitch was heading right for his face and he didn't really have time to do anything other than pull the bat back and move himself out of the way of the pitch.

 

It's a tough call. It's an extremely frustrating call, especially given what happened on the next pitch. It's also probably the right call.

[Lathund]

Jeff Sullivan wrote about this on Fangraphs, including some more examples (including from earlier in the at bat, and from other games) as well as a poll. Currently ~60/40 in favor of foul ball, so quite a divisive issue among neutrals as well.

[lcbj68c]

While the word "intent" is in the bunt definition, I guess, why does the outcome matter? This is really easy for me, as somebody else put it. If the same exact circumstance had been a fair ball off Lorenzen's bat...what would have been the outcome? A putout somewhere, I imagine. There's no way the umpire crew would gather around and say, "well, did he intend to bunt it?" It's only after the foul determination, does somehow, "intent" come into play? That's a bunch of baloney. If the intent is to no longer bunt, then get the bat out of the area of which it will make contact with the ball. Lorenzen didn't. He made that bat make contact with that ball from a bunted position, that he intentionally placed himself into and did not get out of. The fact that the same situation with a ball that lands fair and ends fair would be a different outcome, without intent mattering, tells me that intent doesn't matter simply because it landed foul.

[MadScientist]

While the word "intent" is in the bunt definition, I guess, why does the outcome matter? This is really easy for me, as somebody else put it. If the same exact circumstance had been a fair ball off Lorenzen's bat...what would have been the outcome? A putout somewhere, I imagine. There's no way the umpire crew would gather around and say, "well, did he intend to bunt it?" It's only after the foul determination, does somehow, "intent" come into play? That's a bunch of baloney. If the intent is to no longer bunt, then get the bat out of the area of which it will make contact with the ball. Lorenzen didn't. He made that bat make contact with that ball from a bunted position, that he intentionally placed himself into and did not get out of. The fact that the same situation with a ball that lands fair and ends fair would be a different outcome, without intent mattering, tells me that intent doesn't matter simply because it landed foul.

 

A fair ball is a fair ball. It doesn't matter what the batter was doing ever (as long as he was in the box). The only place it would have mattered would be to the scorer, and they call debatable things whatever they please. If the ball had missed the bat it would have been a ball because he didn't offer at it. Since he didn't offer, it was rightly called a foul. If it somehow looked like a perfect bunt that rolled foul, it may well have been called out, but Cincy would have argued hard on that one, and with good reason.

[KeithStone53151]

While the word "intent" is in the bunt definition, I guess, why does the outcome matter? This is really easy for me, as somebody else put it. If the same exact circumstance had been a fair ball off Lorenzen's bat...what would have been the outcome? A putout somewhere, I imagine. There's no way the umpire crew would gather around and say, "well, did he intend to bunt it?" It's only after the foul determination, does somehow, "intent" come into play? That's a bunch of baloney. If the intent is to no longer bunt, then get the bat out of the area of which it will make contact with the ball. Lorenzen didn't. He made that bat make contact with that ball from a bunted position, that he intentionally placed himself into and did not get out of. The fact that the same situation with a ball that lands fair and ends fair would be a different outcome, without intent mattering, tells me that intent doesn't matter simply because it landed foul.

 

A fair ball is a fair ball. It doesn't matter what the batter was doing ever (as long as he was in the box). The only place it would have mattered would be to the scorer, and they call debatable things whatever they please. If the ball had missed the bat it would have been a ball because he didn't offer at it. Since he didn't offer, it was rightly called a foul. If it somehow looked like a perfect bunt that rolled foul, it may well have been called out, but Cincy would have argued hard on that one, and with good reason.

 

So despite his bat being over the plate, he didn't offer at it? This is getting laughable...

[Lathund]

While the word "intent" is in the bunt definition, I guess, why does the outcome matter? This is really easy for me, as somebody else put it. If the same exact circumstance had been a fair ball off Lorenzen's bat...what would have been the outcome? A putout somewhere, I imagine. There's no way the umpire crew would gather around and say, "well, did he intend to bunt it?" It's only after the foul determination, does somehow, "intent" come into play? That's a bunch of baloney. If the intent is to no longer bunt, then get the bat out of the area of which it will make contact with the ball. Lorenzen didn't. He made that bat make contact with that ball from a bunted position, that he intentionally placed himself into and did not get out of. The fact that the same situation with a ball that lands fair and ends fair would be a different outcome, without intent mattering, tells me that intent doesn't matter simply because it landed foul.

 

A fair ball is a fair ball. It doesn't matter what the batter was doing ever (as long as he was in the box). The only place it would have mattered would be to the scorer, and they call debatable things whatever they please. If the ball had missed the bat it would have been a ball because he didn't offer at it. Since he didn't offer, it was rightly called a foul. If it somehow looked like a perfect bunt that rolled foul, it may well have been called out, but Cincy would have argued hard on that one, and with good reason.

 

So despite his bat being over the plate, he didn't offer at it? This is getting laughable...

 

It's not over the plate. Laughable indeed.

 

 

Another way to look at it: Let's say the ball had been an inch or two higher and missed the bat; would it have been called a ball or a strike?

[Fear The Chorizo]

While the word "intent" is in the bunt definition, I guess, why does the outcome matter? This is really easy for me, as somebody else put it. If the same exact circumstance had been a fair ball off Lorenzen's bat...what would have been the outcome? A putout somewhere, I imagine. There's no way the umpire crew would gather around and say, "well, did he intend to bunt it?" It's only after the foul determination, does somehow, "intent" come into play? That's a bunch of baloney. If the intent is to no longer bunt, then get the bat out of the area of which it will make contact with the ball. Lorenzen didn't. He made that bat make contact with that ball from a bunted position, that he intentionally placed himself into and did not get out of. The fact that the same situation with a ball that lands fair and ends fair would be a different outcome, without intent mattering, tells me that intent doesn't matter simply because it landed foul.

 

Amen - I also think the "intent" to bunt should only be viewed by an umpire as trying to differentiate between whether the hitter is trying to bunt or trying to swing at a pitch, particularly when a ball is contacted. No way should an ump have to make the judgement call about how a bat gets pulled back or positioned shows a batter's intent on whether or not they are trying to bunt the ball.

 

In the case of last night's situation, it should be as cut and dry a judgment call as - "Lorenzen fouled that pitch off (i.e., it wasn't a HBP) - was it on a swing or bunt attempt? 100 out of 100 umpires would say Lorenzen's approach was that of a bunt, so therefore it's a strikeout".

[tmwiese55]

Show the side angle that's out there instead and it looks still out there over the plate and not pulled back in time. I see the gray area now and don't think it's nearly as egregious as gut instinct said, but still side with strikeout.