Conflicting calls by umpires in Little League game

[McMike]

54 minutes ago, buckyswider said:

just a point of clarity- on the pitch we had R1, not R2.  So in the case of (B), it would have to be (IMO) overwhelming evidence that F7 didn't ever give up on the play after U3's signal.  

Oh man, you're right.  The runner was R1.  And if you look closely at the 3B coach when he starts waving, the runner had barely reached second.  Seems to me the LF could have been to the ball by then already, and they were set up for a crisp relay throw to home.

So again, under an awarding bases approach after the reversal, I do not see how they put that kid at home.  They could have awarded him 3B, in itself generous, and avoided making the bad situation so much worse.

[BigBlue4u]

Here's the problem.  You have a double call.  One team reacts to the foul ball call, and the other team reacts to the fair ball call.  If the defense stops playing in reaction to the foul ball call, you have to kill the play.  NOW, the crew has to get together and decide the fairest thing to do, provided the rules allow a flipped call in this situation.  I just don't see how R1 could have been allowed to score, even if the defense stopped playing on the foul ball call.  The each team gets a piece of the pie call would be to put runners on second and third.

[McMike]

Apparently, the Oregon coach has had some time to realize how badly he was hosed.

https://ktvz.com/sports/2022/08/12/it-was-a-foul-ball-bend-north-coach-seeks-little-league-apology-for-call-that-cost-them-the-game/

Little League's official silence is not helping their case here.  They need to explain how exactly this followed the rules.  Not to mention adheres to common sense and fair play.

[aaluck]

13 minutes ago, McMike said:

So again, under an awarding bases approach after the reversal, I do not see how they put that kid at home.

 

8 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

each team gets a piece of the pie call would be to put runners on second and third.

According to the rule above the foul call is irrevocable.  I posted the definition above--cannot be changed.

I don't understand how they thought this was the 'solution' to the problem.

Instead of a shot down third, lets say it was a chop into the front of the box with R3 and HP thinks it hit the kid in the foot (whether it did not not) and throws up his hands and calls it foul.  Would we let R3 score?

Other than an out of the park homer, no one can score during a dead ball.

[McMike]

10 minutes ago, aaluck said:

 

According to the rule above the foul call is irrevocable.  I posted the definition above--cannot be changed.

I don't understand how they thought this was the 'solution' to the problem.

I am assuming that the foul ball in the playoffs is reversible, unlike the regular season.  So the question is, on reversal, what award do you make to the runners assuming that the defense played it out?  It has to be something short of penalizing the defense for giving up on the play.  A dead ball call is the same as a referee's whistle.  It has to be.  That's central to the game.

I do not know what special rules there are for reviews though in the LLWS.  I mean, we have to assume they are reviewable, right?    If foul balls are not reversible in the playoffs either, then I REALLY have no idea WTH is going on with this thing.

For this to make ANY sense from a rules perspective, foul balls must be reviewable in the LLWS, and then we then have a case of the umpires being too generous in their award.  The only other explanation that can be fitted to the rules is the 3U claims he didn't really call a foul ball.

Again, LL officials need to step in and clear this up.

[aaluck]

15 minutes ago, McMike said:

I am assuming that the foul ball in the playoffs is reversible,

Id like to see that rule.

[McMike]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

Id like to see that rule.

so, I found this: https://www.littleleague.org/news/little-league-expands-video-replay-u-s-little-league-baseball-regional-tournament-games-2016/

[Velho]

5 hours ago, Velho said:

Even if called fair, which it likely was, there is high likelihood that R2 scores.

I see now that it was R1, not R2 like I thought. That's brutal because R1 wouldn't score on that without LF pulling up on the foul call.

Is there any out to do neither of the rules @Senor Azul posted (foul and dead or let it play) and say "here's what would have happened" and place R3 and R1? 

Edit: sorry, realize I reposted what others already said. Page refreshed with a dozen replies I didn't see.

[Velho]

3 hours ago, Recontra said:

Neither one of them were on the line, and PU was further off of it than U3

Did you see video? I watched the replay and didn't see anything showing HP position of make the fair call

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, Velho said:

Did you see video? I watched the replay and didn't see anything showing HP position of make the fair call

Me neither. That's just WOM so we don't know if 9.04(c) applies. But thanks to @McMike we do have info that the last play of the game will be reviewed and any fair foul can be changed. While I thought that base hit into the corner would score R1 with F7 being pretty far away a review of the video shows R1 not very far off 1B as the ball passes the infield. I would have to revise my opinion as to R1 scoring and think he would have made it to 3B. So a lot of unknowns and nothing forthcoming from LL. Publishing all the camera angles they used would help. Don't categorize it as a LL thing. MLB does the same.

[McMike]

I wonder if the Manager lodged a protest.  Inasmuch as none of us can figure out for certain what rule the umpires were following or how they applied it, I wouldn't know quite what to protest, but....

I don't know the tournament rules, but I bet he had to do it before the umpires left the field. My guess is he was too shell-shocked and was just as confused as we have been.  (Which is why he's asking now for LLWS to open an eleventh seed.)

 

It could be that the ruling was (1) conflicting calls on the field, but foul call killed the play, dead ball, (2) ball declared fair on official's review, (3) R1 awarded home on judgement.  #2 and #3 are arguable, but not protestable.  A two-sentence press release from the folks in Williamsport could clear it all up.

[ErichKeane]

The best I can tell from watching it over and over...

 

You have U3 and PU with conflicting calls.  U3 puts his hands down pretty quick, almost as if he changed his mind after seeing PU's 'fair' call. 

They decide to 'ignore' the U3's call on the field, and decide the 'on the field call' is a fair-ball.  They go to video review with the 'on the field' as a fair-ball.  At this point, the video review is only concerned about fair/foul, and don't have enough evidence that it is foul to overturn.

 

IMO: The problem here has nothing to do with the replay, and everything with the U3/PU deciding to 'ignore' the effect of U3's foul call, and pretend it didn't happen.  The video review is just an irrelevant source of confusion at that point.

[McMike]

1 hour ago, ErichKeane said:

They decide to 'ignore' the U3's call on the field, and decide the 'on the field call' is a fair-ball.  They go to video review with the 'on the field' as a fair-ball.  At this point, the video review is only concerned about fair/foul, and don't have enough evidence that it is foul to overturn.

IMO: The problem here has nothing to do with the replay, and everything with the U3/PU deciding to 'ignore' the effect of U3's foul call, and pretend it didn't happen.  The video review is just an irrelevant source of confusion at that point.

 

I am trying really really hard to hope that's not what they did.  (That's why I have sunk my teeth in this this so hard.)

Because while that might have made sense in the moment, after taking the time to review (and presumably on the headset with the league brass) it should have been undeniably obvious that the defense reacted to the dead ball call, and the only fair thing to do was work from the dead ball as starting point.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, McMike said:

 

I am trying really really hard to hope that's not what they did.  (That's why I have sunk my teeth in this this so hard.)

Because while that might have made sense in the moment, after taking the time to review (and presumably on the headset with the league brass) it should have been undeniably obvious that the defense reacted to the dead ball call, and the only fair thing to do was work from the dead ball as starting point.

Last I saw the LF was running to the ball, not in a dead out run. Can’t tell if he gave up on the foul signal. Did he think it was the game winning hit and not see the foul signal. Need more video and LL explanation. 

[Senor Azul]

Finding something about the Little League instant replay rules was a lot harder than I first thought it would be. I finally found the following short article written by a Pat Pickens, Staff Writer for something called the CTPost in August 2010. (I think they have since refined the challenge system a bit.) (emphasis added)

…The Little League World Series first implemented replay in 2008; however, they have revamped the system to a challenge system in 2010 in an effort to get calls right more frequently.

Under the rules, each manager gets one challenge per game. If the umpire's call is overturned, the coach retains his challenge and can continue to challenge plays until he loses his challenge. Challenges are re-instituted before extra innings and the last play of every game is reviewed.

Instant replay is in place for all calls except balls and strikes, whether a runner left a base early and whether a batter swings or doesn't swing.

[Kevin_K]

If U3 had stuck with his call, coming up big and verbalizing it multiple times, especially while R1 was approaching 3b this unfortunate set of circumstances would have been mitigated.

U3 was in position for both R1 and the 3BC to see and hear those unmade "Foul!" calls. If the team disagreed on the play they would have been entitled to ask for a review, either through video or an on field get together of the crew.

Regardless, it was not the best way for a game of that significance to end.

[mark38090]

My only input is, these guys may have never worked a 4 man crew until this. I just got back from NC working a South Eastern Regional Call Ripken tournament and that was the first 4 man for me. Too many situations to cover in a pregame when umpires work together for one game. Just glad we didn't have any of these issues. 

[McMike]

6 minutes ago, mark38090 said:

My only input is, these guys may have never worked a 4 man crew until this. I just got back from NC working a South Eastern Regional Call Ripken tournament and that was the first 4 man for me. Too many situations to cover in a pregame when umpires work together for one game. Just glad we didn't have any of these issues. 

I'm sure it's tough and I have a lot of sympathy.  The main source of my frustration is the lack of clarity after the opportunity to review and reflect on the field, and the subsequent silence by LLWS officials.

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, McMike said:

The main source of my frustration is the lack of clarity after the opportunity to review and reflect on the field, and the subsequent silence by LLWS officials.

So they are just like MLB. Maybe it's not just the kids that want to be like the pros.

[dumbdumb]

since this call is apparently IR'able, as a coach, i would tell all my players to run on any ball hit like this until i stopped them. do not stop even if both umpires call foul ball and put their hands up, or both point fair, or one points fair and one calls foul and put their hands up. keep going till i tell you to stop. at the end, i will ask for IR, and put the replay call in New York, oops Districts, Regionals, Williamsports (who/whomever) hands to make the ruling and placement of runners. If the final decision, irregardless of hand signals or verbal signals used by the umpire or umpires whether the same or not the same, is ruled foul by IR, then it is foul, and so be it. If IR rules fair, then so be it. the same with the placement of runners by IR.

and of course not everyone will agree with the IR call all the time either and will feel cheated. happens in a 30-0 game in the first inning, nobody worries. happens when everyone's you know what is so tight you could not get a pin up it with a sledgehammer, then it was total robbery. gonna happen sooner or later. everyone lives with the angels in the first example and you probably will never find it in the public domain. everyone looses brownie points, is the worst thing on the face of the earth and should be fired, games taken, run out of the game, etc. etc. in the second scenario, and everyone will find it live in the public domain everywhere, even Santa in the North Pole, and who knows, maybe Santa would put them on the naughty list.

 

[McMike]

9 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

since this call is apparently IR'able, as a coach, i would tell all my players to run on any ball hit like this until i stopped them.

 

It is probably wise to coach pitchers to keep throwing to the batter, even if the PU stands up and signals time, to make sure he doesn't get charged with a balk due to conflicting signals from the U1, who remained in the ready position.

[buckyswider]

I guess this is sort of an aside to the entire point of the discussion in this particular forum- which is (IMO) more about mechanics, interpretations, and rules- but in the end, does anyone have an opinion on whether the ball was actually fair or foul?  I haven't seen any angles or videos that show me enough to even try to decide.  Again, it's an aside to our discussion, but what does anyone think?  

[ErichKeane]

Just now, buckyswider said:

I guess this is sort of an aside to the entire point of the discussion in this particular forum- which is (IMO) more about mechanics, interpretations, and rules- but in the end, does anyone have an opinion on whether the ball was actually fair or foul?  I haven't seen any angles or videos that show me enough to even try to decide.  Again, it's an aside to our discussion, but what does anyone think?  

The angle on TV is awful. It bounded over the base and looks like it landed in foul, but it's pretty impossible to tell over the base.

[BigBlue4u]

Well, here’s my take.  You absolutely cannot allow the play to continue.  It is no longer a question of getting the call right, it is a question of fair play.  So, you can eliminate the need for a video review right there.  The entire crew should have gotten together and decide the fairest thing to do.  The fairest thing to do would go with the foul ball call made by the 3rd base umpire, (right or wrong) which by proper mechanics is his call, return R1 to first and bring the batter back with an 1-1 count.

[The Man in Blue]

I am more than a little confused by the entire IR process and conversation here.  It is obvious IR did NOT look at whether or not the umpire called the ball foul; it is pretty indisputable that he did.

IR had to have ONLY looked at whether the ball was foul or not.  If they are going to use IR that way, there are two things they need to do a MUCH better job of: (1) being conservative with runner placement and (2) explaining the ruling.  I only saw the clip, but it appeared the plate umpire came out, barked two very unclear commands, pointed, and stormed off the field.

EDIT:  Watched it again (I should have done that before posting since I watched it last night).  The PU's actions were not exactly as I described, but I won't erase what I said.  I'll just pretend it didn't happen.  🤨

So it appears they are saying the call ON THE FIELD was "fair ball" DESPITE the actions of U3 which, even after the immediate call, indicate he called it foul.  He is just walking back into position and then decides to react to the play with a very confused look on his face.  IR would not have enough evidence to overturn the alleged (questionable?) on the field call of fair ball, so that is how it stayed that way ... but was it really that way to start with?