Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Sure would be nice to know of which post/appeal you are referring.
|
Fair point Irish...I was referring to the protest about refusing to check with a partner that MD Longhorn first mentioned. In the ensuing posts, I interpreted both your post and Andy's post as saying this would be an invalid protest.
My point is that if the protest was about the original judgement call, then you are 100% correct - invalid protest (can't protest a judgement call). If, however, the protesting coach believes there is a rule saying one umpire must check with another umpire upon request, then he is protesting a misapplication of the rules. If I'm flat out wrong in this interpretation of what can be protested, please let me know, but this is how I learned it and nobody's ever told me differently.
For the record, I'm in your camp that requiring a fee is dumb. There is a $100 protest fee (returned if the protest is upheld) in my son's league and I've never seen or heard of a coach actually filing a protest because of this fee. Even with rock solid cases, I think most coaches don't know how the protest committee is going to rule on something plus there is the conflict of interest in that the league keeps the $100 if the protest is denied. Not allowing protests at all is just as bad if not worse. My personal feeling is that leagues that have problems with excessive protests should track them by coach using some type of points, penalty and forgiveness system. Such a system might look like this:
Each protest filed (regardless of the outcome): +2 points
Each dropped protest (protesting team wins): -2 points
Each denied protest: +3 point
Each upheld protest: -4 points
Each game without a protest: -1 point
After a coach reaches 15 or 20 points, any additional protests would result in a 1 game suspension unless the protest is upheld (essentially after 3 to 4 denied protests or whatever number sounds appropriate). The 1 game suspension would not reduce the accrued points, so the coach would be in the same position after missing the 1 game. One thing to note about this system is that an upheld protest actually nets a coach -2 points, where as a denied protest results in a +5 for the coach. The reason I had a higher value in favor of the coach for an upheld protest is to place a higher level of responsibility on the umpires for knowing the rules, which we should.
The goal is to maintain the protest process without fear of monetary loss (which is a major deterrent for volunteer coaches) and yet put in place a process to prevent excessive protests. After a couple of denied protests the coach will get a clue and if not, he/she will have to coach every other game. One of the keys to this system is that the right to protest is never eliminated. Any coach could still protest even after the points limit has been reached, so the system doesn't abolish the right to protest. It just allows for reasonable consequences for abusing the right.