|
OK, since we seem to be posting alternate scenarios to illustrate or illuminate the situation,...
In the original situation, the scored was changed between the top and bottom of the 7th after a "30-minute discussion", so the home team was now ahead and the game over.
Suppose this discussion didn't happen then. Suppose the visitors went ahead by a 4-1 score in the top of the 15th inning, the home team failed to score in the bottom, and THEN the "30-minute discussion" was held.
Would the game be reverted to a 2-1 victory by home after 6.5 complete, and all play after that voided?
In every protest situation, the error being protested is that "by rule" a different ruling should have been made. There is no judgment required. It is "by rule". Therefore, I don't see how it is suddenly different if the thing that should have happened "by rule" is a run scored rather than something else.
In the OP, the umpires misinterpreted the force out rule. The remedy for that is for the offended team to protest. Even if there is no state-level protest resolving process, the remedy remains the one and only remedy. If the state takes that remedy away, then there is no remedy. At the least, the obligation was on the offended team to lodge their "protest" at the time and insist that the "30-minute discussion" be held right then and there.
The fact that they did not do that means they lost their opportunity to get the result of the umpire misinterpretation changed.
The over the top scenario offered by Steve was an umpire blatantly exceeding his authority. Even so, the remedy must be to replay the game from that point forward since teams do make their decisions on strategies, risks, attempting steals, squeeze plays, and on and on and on based on the current game situation.
That's how I see it.
__________________
Tom
|