HBP in strike zone
 

https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-walk-o...in-home-opener

Bottom 9, tie game, bases loaded, 1-out, 1-2 pitch appears to be in the strike zone but hits the batters elbow pad. Umpire starts to ring the batter up and then stops and indicates the HBP to end the game.

I understand that the only part of the play that is reviewable is whether it hit the batter or not. They could not review whether the pitch was in the zone or whether the batter made an attempt to avoid it.

But, since it was obvious Kulpa originally thought the pitch was in the zone, could Mattingly have asked him to change the call on the fact that the rule was misapplied. Can he protest if he still doesn't get the result he wanted after that?

You can always protest. Whether it will be allowed by the league office or upheld is a different matter.

No other takers. Thank you Bob.

Let's ask it a different way and see if anybody else wants to opine:
If you had started to ring up the batter, then stopped because of the HBP, would you change your call when it was brought to your attention: "You were going to call it a strike, you obviously thought it was in the zone. Rule 5.05(b)(2) says this should be a strike."

Hit by pitch in the strike zone is a strike, end of story. The game should continue with 2 outs and the next batter up. As previous users have said, only the HBP aspect is reviewable. If the HBP is overturned, then the strikeout would be enforced, as that was the initial call by Kulpa. However, it should never have reached this point.

If a coach raises a rules issue, I am getting together with my partners to review the rule.

I don't know what was said in this instance, so I can't opine on the specifics here.

I don't disagree, but unfortunately it did, which is the premise of my question and you didn't answer it.

If this happens to you, do you change your call on the basis of a rules misapplication?

I don't know what was said either. I'm speculating what I would have said if I was Mattingly. He knows the strike zone is a judgement and can't be reviewed. He knows the attempt to avoid is judgement and can't be reviewed. BUT, it was obvious the umpire originally thought the ball was in the zone. That gives him rules backing to get the call overturned in my opinion.

I have only done girls fast pitch softball and at only at the travel level.

To the question of a protest:

If I were UIC at a tourney and was presented with the proposed protest, I would ask the Ump if it were in the zone. Assuming an honest answer, I would uphold the protest based on misapplication of the rule.
If the Ump lied or waivered or whatever and said "in my judgement it was a ball" i'd have to over rule the protest.

All that said, this is one on the most egregious Ump errors I have seen at the ML level.

How in the world didn't this discussion take place on the field?

Yes!

I would call a strike, because the ball hit the batter in the strike zone. The batter would be out, and the next batter would come up to bat with 2 outs.