[MD Longhorn]

I mentioned the other day that rules and their interpretations must be consistent. This ruling or interpretation or complete fabrication is completely inane, and I think everyone knows it. Here's the main problem with the interpretation that the game being a regulation game by rule can be misapplied and this is subject to protest. Say the AC did not come to the umpires. Say the umpires were changing and talking through things and on their own they realized they messed up. They quickly redress and head to the field, only to find no one there or perhaps only one team, or even both teams with a few players missing. They then restart the game based on the same misconception they restarted YOUR game with, and no one protests (perhaps there's no one there TO protest), and either have a forfeit (double-forfeit?) - or someone's playing without their best player or pitcher or whatever.

Sans protest, per your rule inventor's interpretation of the rules, this is simply a more gross misapplication of that very same rule - but just as valid. Double-forfeit stands.

One could stretch this to ridiculous extremes to show how wrong this ruling is. Umpires return the next day and do the same thing. Double forfeit. Yes, this is ridiculous, but so is the initial ruling. How long after leaving the field is too long? 5 more minutes than the initial sitch? 15? An hour? There has to be a line SOMEWHERE. Fortunately, for the rest of the world ... there IS a line - in your rule 6.12.2.

I guess my point is ... the fact that the person making this decision has been put in a position such that her decisions become law does not make her ruling any less wrong. And yes - this ruling is wrong. It is incorrect. This is not grey area or opinion. No amount of authority makes it less wrong. Calling it interpretation does not make it less incorrect.