Does call alter game? Was umpire wrong? LLWS Semi Final

During the international semi final game of
2015 between Japan and Venezuela, did an incorrect hit-by-pitch call change the tide of the game? After review, what do you think of this call
and do you think it changed the outcome? Here we have a pitched ball that hits the
batter’s hand.. You can clearly see the ball hits the hand
and not the knob of the bat. The umpire sends this runner to first base
on a hit-by-pitch. But was that the correct call? Let’s look at it again. From this shot the ball is within the strike
zone between the knees and mid upper body. And from this shot the ball is over the white
of the plate. This pitch was a strike when it hit the batter. Any time a batter is hit by a pitch in the
strike zone, the ball is dead and a strike is called. If it is the 3rd strike, as in this case,
the batter would be called out on strike three. This is not a reviewable call. Balls and strikes are judgment calls and can
not be argued or reviewed. And in defense of the umpire, the pitcher
missed his spot and the catcher is reaching way over for this ball, it’s not an easy
call to make normally but especially with the hit-by-pitch added. That being said, Venezuela should be up by
one run with two outs and bases loaded. Instead they are tied with only one out. What are your thoughts on this call? Do you think the umpire got it right? What should the call be on the field? Should this type of call be reviewable on
video replay? To watch how this played out during the game
including the ESPN commentary at the time, you can watch this video here, or click the
link to the video in the description below.

26 thoughts on “Does call alter game? Was umpire wrong? LLWS Semi Final”

  1. That's a strike. Those are the plays that make it tough to be an Umpire. Gonna get an earful regardless of what you call.

  2. when the hell did they start teaching umpires to look at the set up of the catcher and where the glove is after the catch to call balls and strikes. The only thing that ever changes is the height of the strike zone . the width never changes regardless of where the catcher is.

  3. Hard call but yeah it’s easy to explain that the catcher is reaching high and out near the top of the strike zone. I would have done the same thing or at least talk to my co officials to slow it down and make the call as a unit.

  4. That is a tough strike for the umpire to call but you have to call it if the pit her put it over the plate.

  5. Rules are there for a reason. Strike. Batters out, dead ball. End of discussion. Blue just missed this one. Only human.

  6. There's an assumption that that umpire, on that day, was calling that relatively high pitch a strike.

    It's just a fact that those strikes tend to disappear as the talent rises. And the LLWS, where pitches can be 70+ mph from 46 feet, certainly qualifies for something that could see a strike zone far lower than the rule book.

  7. It was a strike. But, as you said, it was near the inside too of the strike zone, and the catcher had to really reach for it. The umpire in the split second said that the pitch was a ball due to placement and perception. Than you add in a kid was hit. This is why I don't understand why their isn't a computer which confirms if it is a strike or ball and why every play is not reviewable.

  8. He didn't swing. UMP made the right call.
    I guess i should also say that that looked like it was inside, not over the plate.

  9. Definitely needs to be reviewable. Not just to make sure it's the right call but it would take the "emotions" out of the play. Go immediately into review and medical assessment/care. If I'm an official of children and one gets hit, I'd want to give them the base. I would follow the rules but I feel the first reaction is to give the base.

  10. Non review. The ump made the best call he could with the information he had at the time and the situation as he saw it then. Play ball.

  11. when the pitcher misses like that and the catcher has to reach for it like that…and it hits the batters hand…it might have been technically a strike when looking at replay…but the ump is never going to call that.

  12. I think it was the right call Because how is the umpire supposed to tell if it is over the plate if someone got hit

  13. The little league strike zone, as described in the rule book, is a big. I don't think most umpires, including myself, are trained or do call a zone that big (aside from a 10 run mercy to move the game along) though the batter didn't attempt to avoid, I don't think he attempted to get hit either. I would award 1st every time

  14. Nope, wrong call – it's aka a swinging (missed) strike. 7.3.4. The reason it's (missed), is that the bat, and not the hand, is supposed make contact with the ball. Given the bat never made contact (as obstructed by the hand), there was an attempted swing, and the ball was in the strike zone, thus it's a swinging (missed) strike.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *