Conflicting calls by umpires in Little League game

[Tborze]

16 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I watched that and disagreed with him.  The ball absolutely could have had a sliver of it over the base given both of those bounces, so there isn't enough from that video to reverse the call. 

The ONLY valuable form of review was to show that the 3BU gave a dead-ball signal, and the defense counted on it.  The one video I would LOVE to see (that no one has provided) is how the LF responded to the call.  Was he 'playing through' as if it was fair, or did he pull up and just jog over to the ball and lazily throw it in, because he thought it was foul.

There is a video that pans out briefly. The LFer definitely abandoned his effort to make a play on the ball.  From what I remember seeing is he wasn’t positioned straight up, looked like he was positioned in the gap. 

[ArchAngel72]

23 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

you don't know that .... you can't tell ....    THE ONLY way to tell is if you have a view down the line, period.

I look at the replay in that video and it hit foul on the 1st bounce then it continued down the line and bounced foul again past the bag

 

No way physics tells me it SPUN fair and looped around or over the bag  with the way it bounced both times.  There was not enough spin on the ball to make it do that based on the hops.

 

But yes I am not there I am merely judging by the slow mo and frame by frame video

you look at it and self analyze it tell me if you think it could have been fair.  It hit dirt then hit dirt ( further from the line)  never ever hit chalk

 

 

[Thunderheads]

5 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I look at the replay in that video and it hit foul on the 1st bounce then it continued down the line and bounced foul again past the bag

 

No way physics tells me it SPUN fair and looped around or over the bag  with the way it bounced both times.  There was not enough spin on the ball to make it do that based on the hops.

 

But yes I am not there I am merely judging by the slow mo and frame by frame video

you look at it and self analyze it tell me if you think it could have been fair.  It hit dirt then hit dirt ( further from the line)  never ever hit chalk

 

 

That's where I think you're wrong.  I know what you're saying, and that's fine, but .... I don't think any of us are 100% sure that ball hit foul right off of the bat ...

[ArchAngel72]

I would also point out that bag at 3rd is loose and not put back where it should have been even on the side with the line it has been kicked and is off its spot hanging over the line by at least an inch to me

[Thunderheads]

5 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I would also point out that bag at 3rd is loose and not put back where it should have been even on the side with the line it has been kicked and is off its spot hanging over the line by at least an inch to me

maybe ...... that's LL's fault for having break away bases

[ArchAngel72]

Just now, Thunderheads said:

That's where I think you're wrong.  I know what you're saying, and that's fine, but .... I don't think any of us are 100% sure that ball hit foul right off of the bat ...

The video around the 3:30-3:40 area Hes rolling it back and forth frame by frame.  I think I see a mark in the dirt appear after the ball strikes that to me is not touching chalk

 

[ArchAngel72]

Just now, Thunderheads said:

maybe ...... that's LL's fault for having break away bases

OH YEAH I Agree heartedly  

 

There are Much better break away systems I have seen than some of the ones I have used .

 

[Thunderheads]

11 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

The video around the 3:30-3:40 area Hes rolling it back and forth frame by frame.  I think I see a mark in the dirt appear after the ball strikes that to me is not touching chalk

 

Yep, that's the part of the video that's just not conclusive, that's all I'm saying ....

[ErichKeane]

1 minute ago, Thunderheads said:

Yep, that's the part of the video that's just not conclusive, that's all I'm saying ....

Yep, ALSO NOTE that 'touching' the chalk isn't necessary, just 'the ball was over the chalk' here. 

[ArchAngel72]

12 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

Yep, ALSO NOTE that 'touching' the chalk isn't necessary, just 'the ball was over the chalk' here. 

 

yes but to me to get to hover over any part of the chalk the ball would have to have some sort of spin to create the curve.

Based on the 2 bounces I saw  that ball had only top spin (especially on the 2nd bounce) 

[Velho]

34 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

50 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

Yep, ALSO NOTE that 'touching' the chalk isn't necessary, just 'the ball was over the chalk' here. 

 

yes but to me to get to hover over any part of the chalk the ball would have to have some sort of spin to create the curve.

Based on the 2 bounces I saw  that ball had only top spin (especially on the 2nd bounce) 

Bouncing very close to the line fair first and not as close to the line foul second, the math says it's unlikely it was fair (which is food for thought in the future) but nothing other than a perfect angle can say for certain.

The camera I'd like to see is the HPU calling it fair. Still haven't seen that and find it odd the 3BC looked to him vs the U3 15 ft away. What made him do that?

That all said, U3 called 'foul'. The play should have been dead there. We can't lose sight of that.

[Mudisfun]

Let's bring this back to a level most of us will be working... you, and a partner, 2 teams and maybe 30 fans watching and no replay. Now what do you do, or what do you have?

 

 

[ArchAngel72]

32 minutes ago, Velho said:

Bouncing very close to the line fair first and not as close to the line foul second, the math says it's unlikely it was fair (which is food for thought in the future) but nothing other than a perfect angle can say for certain.

The camera I'd like to see is the HPU calling it fair. Still haven't seen that and find it odd the 3BC looked to him vs the U3 15 ft away. What made him do that?

That all said, U3 called 'foul'. The play should have been dead there. We can't lose sight of that.

I see it bouncing in foul 1st

and yes U3 calling FOUL  yep should have all been dead right there as the defense stopped playing.. 

[ErichKeane]

52 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

Let's bring this back to a level most of us will be working... you, and a partner, 2 teams and maybe 30 fans watching and no replay. Now what do you do, or what do you have?

 

 

THIS part is easy.  I as 3BU (or hopefully as PU who noticed 3BU) kill it, treat it as foul, and explain to the coach that we may have messed up, but that we have to go with the 'dead ball' call here.

[ArchAngel72]

52 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

THIS part is easy.  I as 3BU (or hopefully as PU who noticed 3BU) kill it, treat it as foul, and explain to the coach that we may have messed up, but that we have to go with the 'dead ball' call here.

100% agree

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

Let's bring this back to a level most of us will be working... you, and a partner, 2 teams and maybe 30 fans watching and no replay. Now what do you do, or what do you have?

 

 

Easy, fair ball and game over. 2 man system with a runner on, BU is inside, PU has fair foul. In this case PU ruled a fair ball. The only thing you might have is a pissed off manager, but its PU's call all the way. No replay, so whatever PU calls is final.

[JonnyCat]

22 hours ago, Jimurray said:

If the manager had protested the review as a rule issue would "LL" have accepted the protest. What would your WR colleagues say applies, 9.04(c) or 5.10?

I don't think either of those apply for the following reasons.

1. 5.10 deals with an umpire calling time, not when calling foul. Calling foul is not mentioned anywhere in 5.10. I don't think you can apply 5.10 in this play, IMO.

2. I think 9.04(c) applies to out/safe or catch/no catch, rather than fair/foul when you have conflicting calls. 9.04(c) says "If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires...." I would be inclined to believe that they don't mean fair/foul when talking about a play because of their definition of foul.

The LL RIM has some instructor comments after the definition of foul ball. It states:

"Remember when you call foul, you live with that call. You cannot change a foul call after it is made."

"If a batted ball is inadvertently called foul, and it touches the ground in live ball territory it is irrevocably foul and the ball is dead."

I think the guidance in the RIM is what you have to go with.

Had PU and U3 gotten together, under 9.04(c), they should realize that the ball was called foul, and that call would take precedence. 

On the other hand, WP should have followed their own guidance and ruled a foul ball. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.

[Mudisfun]

42 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

Easy, fair ball and game over. 2 man system with a runner on, BU is inside, PU has fair foul. In this case PU ruled a fair ball. The only thing you might have is a pissed off manager, but its PU's call all the way. No replay, so whatever PU calls is final.

Fine... go 3 man, U3 on the line... smarty!

[JonnyCat]

Just now, Mudisfun said:

Fine... go 3 man, U3 on the line... smarty!

😂

I think you go with the RIM guidance that a ball declared foul is irrevocably foul. Get the crew together and and get on the same page, a ball called foul is foul. Relay that to the coaches and continue play. The PU may have to admit to the manager that he made a mistake and that the ball is foul, nothing else you can do. You have rule book support, so a protest should not be heard.

That's the cleanest outcome you can have. Should have been that way in the Regional game, too.

[McMike]

Alright so here I am back eight months later, where it's a new baseball season, chiming in to say I am still irritated at Little League about their lack of transparency.  Here's their mission statement:

Little League believes in the power of youth baseball and softball to teach life lessons that build stronger individuals and communities.

And that incident is what they call a "teachable moment."  Yet Little League has till refused to come out and explain what exactly happened, precisely what was done at the time, and what could have been done differently (Unless I am mistaken about which "life lesson" they are hoping to impart on the youth...).

Specifically:

• Was there a review, if so, of what?
• What was the decision and ruling on that play?
• Could a protest have been lodged over the dead ball call?
• How do the rules figure into this situation?
• What should participants do in the future when an umpire calls foul?  Should they trust it?

It's a good thing I am no longer coaching, because I would instruct every player to keep running all the way to home after every foul ball call, and tell every fielder to play every single ball until there are at least four outs.

Sidebar: it seems that increasingly lately, Major League announcers are openly griping about the officials' refusal to explain their discussions and decisions.  Which continues to be a "star chamber' black box.  Would it be too much to explain to the fans what they just decided...?

[Velho]

20 minutes ago, McMike said:

Sidebar: it seems that increasingly lately, Major League announcers are openly griping about the officials' refusal to explain their discussions and decisions.  Which continues to be a "star chamber' black box.  Would it be too much to explain to the fans what they just decided...?

You're not going to get much disagreement that MLB needs to massively up their communication.

LLWS is not the MLB (regardless that it's broadcast on ESPN or not). It's 12 years olds.

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, Velho said:

You're not going to get much disagreement that MLB needs to massively up their communication.

LLWS is not the MLB (regardless that it's broadcast on ESPN or not). It's 12 years olds.

 

So ... you are saying LLWS is MORE important?  That's what the parents lead us to believe.

[McMike]

On 5/2/2023 at 10:04 AM, Velho said:

You're not going to get much disagreement that MLB needs to massively up their communication.

LLWS is not the MLB (regardless that it's broadcast on ESPN or not). It's 12 years olds.

Exactly, it is twelve year olds.  The League's mission is to educate them, to teach the rules, to teach sportsmanship, and a foster a love of the game etc.  To my mind, that means above all being transparent and taking advantage of learning opportunities with proactive communication.  Tersely-worded non-explanations that sweep controversies and major mistakes under the rug are the opposite of that.

I apologize if my passion on this point seems weird.  In a way, I am agreeing with you, LL sometimes takes itself too seriously, and forgets its mission.

[McMike]

On 5/2/2023 at 8:29 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

So ... you are saying LLWS is MORE important?  That's what the parents lead us to believe.

Well, on reflection, actually, yeah.  They are. ☺️

... of course that doesn't justify ridiculously inflated expectations or any of the coach/parental misconduct that is all too common.

[ousafe]

@McMike it may be that they want to protect the umpire(s) in question, as they are volunteers and don't deserve continued harassment and embarrasment over this. To be clear, I (selfishly) also think greater transparency is warranted. And I'm theory-crafting a lot here, but maybe when thinking about who is served by more info, they don't want to feed the folks with pitchforks.

I'm sure they have spent time trying to improve the "product" after this incident. We may never know exactly what measures resulted though.