[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

---

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.

Are you the person writing some of those ASA test questions?

Ted