Did they un-ring the bell?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

In a LLWS game, a fair ball was called foul; while the BR was thrown out at 1st.

The defense coach asked for a review. The result if the review was a do-over, that pitch was ignored and the batter was up again with no addition to the count.

The "commentators" guessed that they ruled the BR slowed down on the call; which was not obvious on TV. It looked like an out either way, full speed or not.

Did they un-ring the bell?

I'd bet they ruled it foul. That's why the batter was back up. If the count didn't change there would have already been 2 strikes on the batter.

Why would the defense ask for a review if they got the batter out?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I'd bet they ruled it foul. That's why the batter was back up. If the count didn't change there would have already been 2 strikes on the batter.

Why would the defense ask for a review if they got the batter out?

No, they didn't rule it foul. They let the batter come back up to bat with his one-strike count. He then swung and missed the next pitch (which would've been strike three if the foul call had stood), and then singled.

The defense asked for the review because the PU waved off the out call at first base with the foul call. Defense wanted the foul changed to fair so that the batter would be out on the play at first base.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I'd bet they ruled it foul. That's why the batter was back up. If the count didn't change there would have already been 2 strikes on the batter.

Why would the defense ask for a review if they got the batter out?

From the OP:

The result of the review was a do-over, that pitch was ignored and the batter was up again with no addition to the count.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

From the OP:

The result of the review was a do-over, that pitch was ignored and the batter was up again with no addition to the count.

I knew what the OP said. I speculated that the OP description might be incorrect.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I knew what the OP said. I speculated that the OP description might be incorrect.

Why? Even if it was imaginary, it was the question.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

From the OP:

The result of the review was a do-over, that pitch was ignored and the batter was up again with no addition to the count.

But the big question: Is the pitcher charged with a pitch?

Extra note: I think when the "no pitch intentional walk" was first instituted, the pitcher was still charged with 4 pitches. Is that still the case?

Actually, I don't care, specifically about LL (and I can hear them cheering), and I think pitch counts are silly rules. Baseball (in any forms) can have all the pitch counts it wants, just keep them out of softball.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

But the big question: Is the pitcher charged with a pitch?

[...]

No.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Extra note: I think when the "no pitch intentional walk" was first instituted, the pitcher was still charged with 4 pitches. Is that still the case?

Actually, I don't care, specifically about LL (and I can hear them cheering), and I think pitch counts are silly rules. Baseball (in any forms) can have all the pitch counts it wants, just keep them out of softball.

Yes, when the manager requests a no-pitch intentional walk, the pitcher is still charged with four pitches on his/her pitch count.

Pitch count limits were instituted in LL Baseball (there are no pitch count limits in LL Softball, only inning limits) to minimize arm injuries due to excessive pitching. I have no problems with that, except that it's a bit inconsistent on how they enforce the rule. If you really are concerned about how often a young pitcher delivers a pitch, then that's what should be counted.

In other words, if a pitcher delivers an actual pitch, but a do-over is ruled (as in the scenario from the OP), that pitch should be counted. Why ignore a pitch that was actually thrown?

Conversely, why the hell add four pitches to the pitcher's pitch count on a no-pitch intentional walk. The kid never used his arm! So dumb...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Conversely, why the hell add four pitches to the pitcher's pitch count on a no-pitch intentional walk. The kid never used his arm! So dumb...

Only to prevent using intentional strategically to avoid adding to the count.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Only to prevent using intentional strategically to avoid adding to the count.

Which I honestly don't understand the issue. So what if a pitcher avoids delivering four pitches to intentionally walk a batter. Where is the strategy in that?

This is what really was going on. When a pitcher tried to intentionally walk a stud batter during the LLWS a couple of years ago, the opposing coach instructed his batter to take half-assed swings at the fourth and fifth pitches just to add two additional pitches to the pitcher's count to force him/her to reach his/her limit sooner. It was nothing more than a "FY" move on the coach's part for taking the bat out of his player's hands.

But it was also another blemish to LL's "clean" reputation in front of a watching audience (just like the sign stealing issue, which is another discussion topic in and of itself). So they came up with the no-pitch intentional walk rule to prevent that little form of gamesmanship. But they further felt that the pitcher should be burdened with four additional pitches to his/her count.

Why? Is it a disincentive to using intentional walks as a viable tactic to improve a team's chances of getting out of an inning? It must be, because it really has nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of the pitch count rule to prevent injuries due to overuse.

That's why I think any time a pitch is actually delivered by the pitcher to a batter, it should be counted against the pitcher's limit. The do-over shouldn't negate the fact that he/she pitched the ball. But that's just me.

[CecilOne]

The strategy is that the pitcher could then have more pitches for the next, presumably easier batter. We often see an IW to a great batter when a weak batter follows, in leagues where pitch count does not matter.

This does not mean that I agree or disagree with the rule.