Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Which rule code was this?
I don't understand how this official interpretation could be rationalized. The game was over, the umpires had left the field and were in their changing room. This wasn't a matter of the umpires being slightly outside the fence... they were some distance away and in their changing room. The umpires had no further authority to hear an appeal or to restart the game. They might THINK they had that authority, but they did not. Neither did the rules interpreter (IMO). The supposed misapplied rule (when to hear an appeal) could not have been misapplied because the game was over. Done. Finished. There was no game going on in which they could misapply a rule.
I suppose my opinion is clear?  |
Again, your opinion. The interpreter was very knowledgeable of all details. The rationalization (as I have stated before) was: the umpires misapplied a playing rule - by honoring the appeal. Yes, that is a rule (no appeals once the umpires leave the field). The offending coach has the opportunity to make the protest on the misapplication (that would have been upheld) but did not. Yes, that is a misapplication of the playing rules; this was the rationalization.
Again, you don't have to agree, and tournament UIC's, organization UIC's/rule writers might give a different interpretation. Not uncommon between rule codes (to answer an earlier question, this rule code does not have three or five letters).