Quote:
Originally Posted by Harkdulai
About the protest. I was not in the conversation between the manager and the umpire. Regardless of that the plate umpire was wrong.
|
Perhaps... and perhaps not. You were not in the conversation. The correctness of the plate umpire's actions (as you should know) depend ENTIRELY on the content of that conversation. On a couple of points.
1) If the manager was "protesting" whether there was interference at all or not (like you said ... pure judgement), the umpire AND the TD were correct in not allowing this protest to move on. Judgement calls are not protestable, and not subject to the "stop everything down and call the next level up" protest procedure.
2) More importantly, and no one has mentioned this yet ... it was said the manager had a fit and got ejected. He CANNOT insist on a protest at this point. He cannot even request one - his words, after his ejection, are entirely moot.
Had the manager been arguing about who should be called out AND used the word "protest" BEFORE he was tossed - then everything else you're being told here is correct - the protest should have been called in and likely (assuming your description of the play and the umpire's description of the play line up).
(One other question ... is it possible the umpire ruled that the batter interfered INTENTIONALLY?)
As you said, you don't know exactly what was discussed between umpire and manager, and it's entirely possible that what the manager says (after the fact) he said and what he actually said differ greatly. I'd be curious to hear not only the PU's version of that conversation but the TD's version of the subsequent conversation... and whether "protest" happened before or after the ejection.