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.

[liveforoctober]

The craziest thing to me was that when the umpires convened the home plate umpire very clearly said "It hit his bat?" to the 3rd base ump, who shook his head yes. I couldn't really believe that he missed it.

[liveforoctober]

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.

 

[sveumrules]

The way CC said the umps explained it to him was that by trying to get out of the way, Lorenzen was no longer offering & since he was no longer offering it was not a bunt attempt & just a regular old foul ball.

[Fear The Chorizo]

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).

[rickh150]

Without knowing the Rule, two hands on bat in bunting stance, with knee on ground, should be a Bunt attempt no matter what his intentions were.... if the Rule says otherwise, the Rule should be changed.

[sveumrules]

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.

[JohnBriggs12]

He backed up his body to protect himself but he didn't bring the bat back to his body. He was still trying to get a bunt down. I've seen pitchers countless times get bunts down on similar pitches. They botched the call.

[pacopete4]

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.

[Lathund]

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.

[Surhoff5]

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?

[Bombers]

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

[Fear The Chorizo]

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.

[tdcarney22]

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.

[jerichoholicninja]

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.

[tmwiese55]

I get how it would be feasible to pull a bunt back and the ball hit the bat. In this situation though, he hadn't done it yet. The bat was pretty much still square with the plate. Strikeout.

[Outlander]

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.

[Lathund]

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.

[tmwiese55]

Yes, I agree that he was trying to do it but he hadn't done it yet. It's that simple in my book so strikeout.

[bjkrautk]

Count me among the minority, but I'm more upset with the heart of the plate meatball that Taylor Williams served up after the non-bunt than I am with the umpire's call.

[Mays Hayes]

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.

[KeithStone53151]

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.

[tmwiese55]

I think Mays' post is a simple and true way to look at it and why it should be a K.

[jerichoholicninja]

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

[KeithStone53151]

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.