Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Ives
I was one of the folks on eTeamz arguing that the umpire i fact MUST accept a protest (as opposed to SHOULD), mainly because, as BJ pointed out, the umpire may be wrong.
It seems to me, that if the umpire gets to decide whether or not to accept a protest, that the potentially guilty party is making the decision as to whether he's guilty or not (Sorry officer, you can't give me that speeding ticket, I've decided I'm not guilty.) Not a good thing I think.
4.19 allows a protest when the manager claims a decision is in violation of the rules. As long as he claims violation (right or wrong) he apparently has the right. In addition, I would argue that the 4.19 statement " . . the decision of the League President shall be final." means that an umpire is not empowered to make the final ruling as it would usurp a power specifically granted to the LP.
Which leads to "OK, I'm protesting on the grounds that your refusal to accept my protest is a violation of the rules, specifically 4.19 which states that the LP gets the final decision, not the umpire."
I think LL and Pro have it right, accept it and get on with the game.
|
It's clearly against the rules to accept a protest on a judgment call. There's little question that Warren is right there: "No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire." But, as everyone knows, I'm perfectly willing to accept official "changes" to the rules, such as: Accept the protest in PRO.
I think it's clear Warren is also right: There's a pragmatic reason. The fans don't want to sit around for 10 minutes while the umpire and skipper argue whether the "event" is subject to protest.
But at the amateur level,
if the protest is free, I would spend the time educating the managers. Otherwise, I say "He's out," and the manager comes to lodge an official protest. I can see a game where Team Blue files 61 protests, ranging from my hat through unshined shoes to that called third strike, while Team Red files 41 protests (they won by 10) on much the same subjects.
But one thing I don't understand at all. Someone wrote he never said he would not try to talk a skipper out of a protest. But in that same post he says, "Accept the protest and get on with it." Isin't that a distinction without a difference?