Did they un-ring the bell?
 

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 of 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?

Link to the video? I can't comment without seeing it.

Also, I don't do LL, so I have no idea what the review rules are at the LLWS. I do do NCAA...and I'm not exactly looking forward to next year with replay as an optional conference rule. I'm not opposed to getting it right...but having observed the first couple years of replay in MLB, I suspect it's going to have growing pains.

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.

Here's the link. https://youtu.be/_DocFLSme78?t=451&f...VPt8wjFEck4saM

They did. Apparently, LLWS replay rules allow for "do-overs".

What a joke. Either you let the play stand as called and add a strike to the batter, or you ignore the foul call since it didn't affect anyone (catcher made the play, BR never slowed down). I know the latter goes against the "once foul, always foul" mantra, but with replay, it should be an option.

But to rule a do-over here is a sham.

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.

The OP is about the process, not the play.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

No.

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...

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

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.

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. :)

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).

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.

OP ball was called foul. Hawai'i (yes editor, the apostrophe is correct) game the ball was called fair and played as if it was fair so there was nothing to fix.

Manager can challenge until he gets two "fails".

The payers are 12, not pros. The umpires are volunteers, not pros. Accept that neither will be perfect and that the "get it right" approach is now in all sports - so replay will continue.

All due respect, I get tired of that age-old excuse. They may not get paid to work LL games, but they're far from being the typical "volunteer" that you see on a Saturday morning in March at some local LL park. These umpires are have worked tens if not hundreds of games in any given season for quite some time. Many umpires also work paid gigs doing travel, high school, and even college games. They've attended plenty of camps and clinics. They know what they're doing out there. They don't need replay help for every single call.

I don't do LL anymore, and haven't in over ten years. So I don't bother knowing the replay rules for the post-season. Perhaps you are right that managers only get two "fails". But I've seen where the umpires will get together after a call and then consult the booth. For all I know, they may even get called to the booth when the replay official feels a wrong needs to be made right. Who knows. But what I do know is that they allow replays for calls that have no business being reviewed, and then they come up with such bogus decisions as a "do-over" to ensure nobody got hurt by the call.

They are selected as much or more for time in service to LL vs skill. It's a reward for meritorious service.

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?

Now, my first two answers are based upon the way every other organization would handle this. Once the ball is ruled Foul, tough noogies that it could be shown that it was fair. The Foul call stands, and let's play. Sh!t happens.

You're last question is only relevant if you're considering to change the original call to Fair, and then want to "play God" in determining what should the final ruling be. I think the BR was toast on the play if he kept going at a dead sprint. It appears he might've slowed up a little bit, probably from seeing U1 mirror the foul call (which is a No-No to begin with; umpires should not be coaching base runners, that's what base coaches are for), but in my judgment it didn't change what I think the outcome of the play would be.

So if I was the replay official here and had people above me give me the authority to change a Foul call to Fair, I would've ruled the BR out, and let's play. Sh!t happens.

I'm late on getting back to this, but I appreciate the video link for context.

With the benefit of slo-mo, I'm still wondering if it hit the bat a second time while in the batter's hands while his feet were still in the box. I don't think it did, based on the multiple angles, but our PU doesn't have that luxury.

It was a weird bunt. PU was blocked on seeing the ball (probably not) hit the bat a second time, or less likely, hit the batter as he exited the box. I think the foul call on the field was one of these two reasons, and rightfully so. We don't always see the ball hit the batter....we learn to react to the path of the ball (which was weird) and the reactions of the batter/fielders.

THAT SAID

Even if review shows this fair, under no softball code that I work can we un-ring the bell and make it fair from a foul call. If PU judged it hit the batter or the bat while in the box, we got a dead ball/foul ball, and judgment in this case isn't up for review.

Would I ignore the pitch? No -- he threw it. Ignoring this in the pitch count is almost as stupid as charging F1 with 4 thrown pitches on an IBB. Pitch counts are there to protect arms. For whatever reason... :D

Yes, I think the batter slowed down perceptibly on the play, but I can't say if that was due to the foul call from home, the mirrored dead-ball signal from U1 which we don't do in softball, or because he knew he was out by ten feet.

I don't hate the do-over rule, and for LL, that's probably the best ruling for the kids. Elsewhere, we gotta eat this foul ball. The adults kicked it...so don't penalize anyone in LL....just pretend it never happened and finish the at-bat. Alternatively, invoke Rule 10/12/15...whichever is the one in the back of the book that says we can fix umpire jeopardy and make it right by the alphabet that's on your shirt or hat that day. (Which IMO would be an out at first base)

My opinion, based on the fact that the PU waited to signal anything until the catcher fielded the ball, was that the PU goofed and thought the area between the two boxes in front of home plate was foul territory. He yelled "FOUL, FOUL!" a couple of times. The proper mechanic if he felt the ball hit the bat a second time or the batter as he existed the box is to call "TIME!" (or "DEAD BALL!" in softball).

I don't think we can judge bases on proper mechanics, even if we were experts on LL. The timing you describe is very relevant.

Besides, while watching the game, I reran, frame by frame etc., and there was no contact with bat or BR. Anyway, the question is not about the call being wrong, not about mechanics; just about the subsequent process and decision.

I'm another that does not work LL sanction.

I know very little about their rules, but simply based on this string, some of their thinking seems logically fallacious.

To not charge the pitcher a pitch count on the "do over" is counter to the reason the pitch count is in place in the first place, isn't it? If the batter became injured on that play, having a "do over" doesn't make him any less injured.

Charging 4 pitches on an IBB is simply rife for strategic "non sportsmanlike actions". Just have him take the Don Drysdale approach: "Don Drysdale would consider an intentional walk a waste of three pitches. If he wants to put you on base, he can hit you with one pitch." - Mike Shannon

I actually don't even know if runners can lead in LL. But maybe pitch counts should apply to throws to a base in an attempted pickoff. And while we're at it, warm up pitches should count, too.