[UmpJM]

Originally posted by Carl Childress



1. The appeal was not legal. There's no procedure for such an "appeal." Appeals occur on illegal equipment and players, on batting-out-of-order, and on baserunning mistakes.

Originally posted by mcrowder
I agree fully with Carl's first post.

Gentlemen,

Now hold on just a gol' durn minute there!

I know it's kind of towards the back of the book, so perhaps you missed:

9.02

... (b) If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire's decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made. Such appeal shall be made only to the umpire who made the protested decision. (c) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.

Now, the play in question was described as one involving the possibility of an obstruction call. None of us (with the possible exception of Frank Drebin) actually saw the play. As with any such call, without having been there, there is no way to comment definitively on the proper ruling on the play. According to Frank's judgement, there was no obstruction - based on my mental picture from his description, I would be inclined to agree. But my judgement, as well as Frank's, are irrelevant. The only judgement that matters is the umpire's judgement.

There are also a number of details missing from Frank's description of the play that, if supplied, might make me more inclined to think that there was obstruction on the play.

Another key point from Frank's description is which rule code the game was being played under. Different rule codes have different criteria by which the umpire properly judges whether the fielder has or has not illegally impeded the runner. Under LL rules, the catcher is not allowed to set up in the baserunner's basepath without posession of the ball. If he does and hinders the runner prior to gaining posession of the ball, it's obstruction. Perhaps the umpire initially improperly felt the catcher was not liable for obstruction because he was "in the act of fielding" the throw.

But, if I'm reading his post correctly, Frank's question isn't really about whether or not there was obstruction on the play (it would seem he has already reached his own conclusion on that question); rather, it concerns the propriety of the Offensive Manger's questioning of the call, and the procedure that was followed that ultimately led to the reversal of the original call made on the field.

Carl unequivocally states "The appeal was not legal." and mcrowder jumps on his bandwagon. Well, if the offensive Mgr. had a reasonable belief that the PU had improperly applied the rules in not calling obstruction and calling his runner out, he was perfectly legal in utilizing his 9.02(b) rights in appealing the umpire's possible misapplication of the appropriate rule(s).

Now, we didn't hear the conversation, so we don't know whether the manager was "objecting to the umpire's judgement" of the play or appealing his application of the rules. If the former, I would agree with Carl's assertion; if the latter, I must disagree.

If we assume he was appealing the application of the rule, what about the procedure? Let's see.

First, he waited until action was "relaxed" before initiating his appeal, and it was certainly before the next pitch or play. So far, so good.

It does not appear that he requested "Time" - not a big deal in this situation, but certainly better to do so.

He went to the umpire who made the call in question. Again, per 9.02(b), that is the proper procedure.

The umpire who made the initial ruling requested input from his partner. Per 9.02(c), again, perfectly proper if he decides he wants to.

Finally, the umpire who made the original call came to the decision that his initial ruling was incorrect and reversed it to what he believed to be the correct call.

Now, all the sillines with having runners run out on to the field and fielder's trying to tag them during the conduct of the appeal is just that - silliness. Kind of unseemly and pointless, but not that big a deal.

To those who would suggest that obstruction is always a "judgement call" and, therefore, cannot be properly appealed, I say horse hockey!

All rulings made on plays during baseball games involve both an element of judgement and an element of rules application. The judgement part is "what happened". The rules part is "how do the rules apply to what I judged happened." While the "what happened" part is generally not subject to appeal, the "how do the rules apply..." part is. It says so right in the rules!

JM

(Edited to correct part about "which rule code"

[Edited by CoachJM on Jul 26th, 2005 at 01:57 PM]