[Ump20]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Moose's argument that an umpire should "accept" any protest, without attempting to quash it because it is over a judgment call, is supported by at least two authoritative opinions I am aware of.

This issue has been the subject of lively debate in various discussion forums for years. Last year, it came up on the eteamz.com discussion board right around this time.
The other authoritative opinion is the Professional Interpretation as reported by Jim Evans in Baseball Rules Annotated. He says:

> Professional Interpretation: At times, a manager may insist on lodging
> a protest on a decision which is, in essence, a judgment call. After
> explaining the prohibition against protesting judgment calls, the
> umpire should go ahead and accept the protest in order to proceed with
> the game in a timely manner. It will then be the league president’s
> responsibility to nullify the improperly lodged protest.

There can be no doubt that this remains the current professional interpretation, as just about every protest in MLB you read about is, in fact, over a disputed judgment call. The homerun that should have been fan interference in the ALCS game a couple of years ago was protested - protest denied, judgment decision. Last year, the Rangers protested a balk call. Bzzzzt.

One other reason the umpire should not attempt to deny a protest on the field is because umpires' rulings frequently (hell, almost always) involve both judgment and rule application. Sometimes, it's not completely clear whether the argument is over the umpire's judgment, or his interpretation of the applicable rule. Rather than hash that out on the field, it's better and fairer to let a protest committee sort through the facts and resolve the matter. Infield fly rule is a good example of a rule that has equal parts judgment and rule application, and depending on how the umpire describes his decision making process, what appeared to be a judgment call could have indeed been a misapplication of the rule.

I choose to respond almost entirely (6:00PM) to the one of your two most recent posts that was focused on umpiring. I did read the subsequent one (7:00PM) which while well written was an attack of Warren's attack (What did you eat for dinner?). Much of your infighting with Warren has little value to serious posters and lurkers. I would say I was a bit surprised when he appeared to refer to you as his "enemy".

As to protests my association advises us to accept protests and move on and be pretty damn sure you aren't screwing up a rule. So I might tell a coach he can't protest my ball and strike calls but once he says he still wants to -- sign the book and move on with the show. Jim/NY