Quote:
0 outs, R1 on 2B. B2 hits a grounder to F6 who makes a play to 1B. The BR just beats the throw, but only touches the white portion of the double base.
As F3 throws to 3B in an attempt to get the late-breaking R1, B2 takes a hard left and continues to 2B.
R1 is tagged out. The defense then makes a live ball appeal that B2 missed 1B since he did not tag the colored portion of the base. The umpires consult and rule that the appeal is not applicable and B2 safe.
The defense then protests the game on the basis of the umpire crew's misinterpretation of rule 8.2.M.3
The PU refuses to accept the protest. Is this correct? If not, why?
|
As noted, rule 9.1.2 notes that a protest based upon the misinterpretation of a rule must be made before the next play.
The discussion is base upon the throw to 3B AFTER the BR missed the base. Some consider this the "next play".
After making a fool of myself by questioning the requirement of "next play" thanks to a brain fart that reverted to "appeal" as opposed to protest, it was explained, if I remember correctly as that is not the manner in which that qualification was intended.
Someone can correct me if wrong. The line of thought was that by using this to refuse the appeal, you are pretty much giving the offending team a break.
However, the more I think about it, I don't believe there really is a problem with the sentence. If used as I believe it was meant, in the play above the misinterpretation of the rule occurred when the umpire determined there was no violation by the BR.
Hence, there was no play between the misinterpretation and the protest. A team cannot protest an interpretation prior to it being made.