Did they un-ring the bell?

[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.

[CecilOne]

Back to the original point. The ball was called foul by mistake. We all consider that a mistake that stands.
Even though review showed it was fair, would you change the foul call? Would you ignore the pitch as they did?

That batter eventually singled, could have ended up scoring and did affect the batting order that inning and the next.

Anyone who saw the play, did you think the BR slowed down on the call?

BTW, reviews are for force plays, tag plays, bases missed, bases left early; apparently not fair/foul (by TV coverage).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

BTW, reviews are for force plays, tag plays, bases missed, bases left early; apparently not fair/foul (by TV coverage).

I watched a couple of innings of the Hawaii / Virginia game last night. Hawaii was up in the top of the sixth with runners on base. Batter hit a sharp bouncer over the third base bag and into the left field corner, scoring a couple.

Virginia manager came out to the PU to question the fair call. PU checked with the replay reviewer, then came out to home plate and pointed fair.

So apparently the LL replay rules for their post-season games do allow for review of fair/foul.

Frankly, LL's replay rules are a joke and are making these games unwatchable, in my opinion. Apparently there is no limit to the number of times a manager can request a review. I would say that almost 100% of banger plays and close fair/foul calls have gone through reviews.

It's gotten to the point where I question LL's faith in the quality of the umpires who work their regionals and world series. They are so paranoid that an umpire's call could result in a player or team being wronged that they're bending over backward to prevent it.

Mark my words: LL will implement the computerized strike zone that is being used in the Independent Baseball Leagues this summer. It is the one thing that LL still has to depend upon the umpire's judgment, and I'm sure they're cringing at some of the pitches that are being called strikes.