The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2019, 08:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,410
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?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.

Last edited by CecilOne; Wed Aug 21, 2019 at 09:03am. Reason: typo corrected - of for if
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2019, 08:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 770
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.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."

Last edited by teebob21; Tue Aug 20, 2019 at 08:23pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2019, 09:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
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?
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 07:57am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 07:58am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
Link to the video? I can't comment without seeing it.
Here's the link. https://youtu.be/_DocFLSme78?t=451&f...VPt8wjFEck4saM
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 08:04am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
Did they un-ring the bell?
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
Link to the video? I can't comment without seeing it.
The OP is about the process, not the play.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 10:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
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.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 11:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2019, 07:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
But the big question: Is the pitcher charged with a pitch?

[...]
No.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 22, 2019, 08:09am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
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...
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 22, 2019, 09:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 22, 2019, 12:02pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saved By The Bell ... BillyMac Basketball 2 Sun Dec 29, 2013 03:51pm
RIP Wally Bell SethPDX Baseball 0 Mon Oct 14, 2013 08:13pm
You Can Ring My Bell ... BillyMac Basketball 42 Thu Oct 28, 2010 05:41pm
For whom the bell tolls.... UmpJM Baseball 15 Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:57am
Officiating with Bell's Palsy BigDave Basketball 3 Wed Jun 14, 2000 02:37am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1