Protests and Authoritative Opinion Revisited.

[Rich Ives]

Warren, I didn't mean to imply that an umpire would cheat on his responsibility. But I've encountered too many who don't know the rules. I don't know if I'd want to trust their ability to judge whether it's a rule violation or a judgement call.

The participants on this, and the other boards are experienced folks who know what's going on. I'd be happy to have any of them umpire one of my games. But because you are experienced, and generally do higher level games, you lose sight of those of us at the lower levels. We're in a different world.


My experience is pretty much centered around LL age leagues, tournamants, etc. I've seen a LOT of protestable calls. I only actually protested one 'cause it was so idiotic (Ol Smitty called "That's four fouls, you're out" - guess who won that one.) I've had an association ump call a foul ball on a ball hitting third base and then tell me "sorry, I was thinking of the high school rule." I've had runners called out for leaving too soon. I had another association ump tell me I had to remove a pitcher instead of moving him to another position. I've had IFs denied because the ball came down on camped infielders who hapened to be a couple of feet onto the outfield grass. I've had runners called out for running out of the baseline when the nearest fielder didn't even have the ball etc. etc. etc.

I'd hate to have one of these guys get the idea that they could/should/must deny a protest.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Warren, I didn't mean to imply that an umpire would cheat on his responsibility. But I've encountered too many who don't know the rules. I don't know if I'd want to trust their ability to judge whether it's a rule violation or a judgement call.

---[snip]---

My experience is pretty much centered around LL age leagues, tournamants, etc. I've seen a LOT of protestable calls. I only actually protested one 'cause it was so idiotic (Ol Smitty called "That's four fouls, you're out" - guess who won that one.)

Ok, ok. Point taken! (grin) As I said, I can understand why LL Inc's Andy Konyar made the ruling he did. No argument there. If your leagues basically follow the LL pattern for umpire experience then following their directions concerning protests is also perfectly appropriate, IMHO. I guess this is just another example of where the rules need to be modified a little to fit the situation.

Between LL level competition and the MLB Pro's there is a whole LOT of territory that needs to be covered. Hopefully it is being covered mostly by accredited officials who can at least tell the difference between a judgement decision and a rule misapplication, most of the time. Maybe not. I'm certainly willing to declare that MOST of the umpires I work with could be trusted with this decision. The ones who couldn't are always allocated with a more trusted official.

Cheers,

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by BJ Moose

"ACCEPT ALL Protests, where the manager insists! After all,WHY NOT?? There is NO down side, none. And there are a host of potential problems if you don't".

Moose we do not want to make games longer than they already are. In the Pre-Game I do not know about you, but I STRICTLY tell all the coaches, Don't bother coming out on judgement calls.

Look what could happen. First Pitch you call STRIKE , Manager says hey blue I think that was a ball - I want to protest. Nex't pitch a kid hits a screamer down the third base line that hits the leftfield chalk and you point fair, coach says hey blue that's foul I want to protest.

I personally do not allow any Judgement Protests, and I believe the rulemakers knew what they were doing when they put in the appropriate rule regarding such calls.

They do not pay me by the hour and allowing a coach to protest a judgement call simply adds needless time to the game.

Pete Booth

[Rich Ives]

Warren, I didn't mean to imply that an umpire would be unethical in his interpretation. Sorry if you took it that way. I have, however, over the last 28 years, encountered umpires who don't understand the difference between rules and judgement. As a manager it's frustating. As a league official it means having to deal with an angry manager and getting the UIC to educate the potential offender.


We can all read 4.19 and see it different ways as it leaves room for such variations.

I view this from two of the three perspectives - manager and league officer/director.

I think the rule means that, as the league president (or protest committee) has the final authority, that he is the one who determines a protest's validity - thus he has to get it to make a ruling. At the youth/volunteer level it also provides a healthy, albeit time consuming way, for frustratios to be vented, and can be beneficial to all the participants.

I also interpret the rule to mean that if a manager claims a violation he can file a protest - period - foolish as it may be.

I understand the position of the experienced umpire, who truly does know that it will not be a successful protest, that he doesn't want to go through the trouble. I can also understand why an umpire will believe that the "accept a protest" concept applies to him. After all, if he can convince the manager that it is not a protest situation, very well and good; he's most likely right; it'll save everyone time and the manager some embarrassment and maybe cash.

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Pete, neither Moose nor I are advocating tolerating such in-your-face abuse from a coach. That coach would be gone in a New York minute in anybody's game.

We're simply endorsing the practice advised by Andy Konyar for Little League and Jim Evans for pro ball, that says certainly first you try to dissuade a coach from making a frivolous protest over a judgment decision, but, rather than stand there and argue with him about whether or not his protest is "valid," if he insists on protesting, let him protest. Then go back to playing baseball.

Add Jaksa/Roder to the group:

"Protest - If a manager claims that an umpire has misapplied a rule, he can file a protest. A manager cannot protest an umpire's judgment (i.e., his decision of a ball or strike, safe or out, fair or foul, etc.), but if such manager perseveres in his demand to protest, an umpire should accept it."

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by umpyre007
Add Jaksa/Roder to the group:

"Protest - If a manager claims that an umpire has misapplied a rule, he can file a protest. A manager cannot protest an umpire's judgment (i.e., his decision of a ball or strike, safe or out, fair or foul, etc.), but if such manager perseveres in his demand to protest, an umpire should accept it."

Sounds to me like, "Humor the manager before chunking him," rather than, "You must accept the protest."

To me, anyhow.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Sounds to me like, "Humor the manager before chunking him," rather than, "You must accept the protest."

To me, anyhow.

It may have become lost somewhere in the crossfire, Jim, but the point I was originally making is that the umpire has the authority to turn down a protest. If after turning the protest down several times, the manager still "insists" in lodging it or "perseveres in his demand to protest", then it is preferable to note the protest (I don't use the term accept in this case - I know it's semantics, but the difference is important when it gets to the level of dispute resolution) rather than ejecting the manager or further holding up the game.

As you know, at your prompting I made a point elsewhere that noting/accepting an invalid protest is far preferable to ejecting the manager. In the case we discussed, the ejection issue was only raised because the manager had refused to allow his team to continue playing, even after the protest was rejected. I read that as objecting to the original judgement decision that he wanted protested. Besides, I hoped by ejecting the manager for dissent that his assistant might be more amenable to bringing the team back onto the diamond, rather than having to forfeit the game as things eventuated.

I see the following in order of the umpire's resorting to them:

1. Reject the protest where possible

2. Note/Accept the invalid protest if necessary

3. Eject the manager if unavoidable

4. Forfeit the game as the last resort.

Please don't ANYONE think I am advocating this course in terms of the game situation which started this thread. This is only a GENERAL guideline for the use of these tools, in the listed order.

Cheers,

[BJ Moose]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Originally posted by umpyre007
but if such manager perseveres in his demand to protest, an umpire should accept it."

Wow... the truth shall set you free! JP, you are an EWS member is spirit.

Most leagues CHARGE for a protest.. or would have some ways to take care of the idiot coach who actually DID insist on protesting my judgment call. It can only happen once.

But in the real world... In 10 years and a couple zillion games.. I have NEVER had the coach actually INSIST on protesting after my calm and cool explanation to him as to why he was wrong, and I was right, and its a judgment call anyway. They always acquiesce.

I've had a few protests, sure, coaches INSISTING, due to their mistaken view of a rule.. Fine, noted! (Time elapsed, 30 seconds). And what the heck.. I have never been on the wrong end in a protest. (or at least I have been SAVED by the offended team winning! (thankgod!))

I've even had the games where the situation was SO CONVOLUTED and MARTIAN, that I ADVISED both sides to protest, because I didn't have a CLUE what to do. (I think this was a courtesy runner being abducted by the Megatroid ship during playing action, but he missed 2nd).

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

[Jim Porter]

Mike,

I align myself with no group. I did not post the Jaksa/Roder entry, but I knew about it.

I think there has been positive input on both sides of this issue. I believe Warren has outlined all the exact reasons why we try like the Dickens to avoid a protest on our judgment. His advice should be followed.

I believe others have also provided good arguments as to why we should accept a protest if a manager perseveres before sending him to the parking lot.

What I was attempting to point out was that it is not a "must" accept situation. The rules are clear that we do not have to accept such protests on our judgment. But the advice from Jaksa/Roder, and other such sources (I believe Jim Evans is another,) is that discretion is the better part of valor. Don't chunk him, humor him.

Warren doesn't disagree with this notion. He agrees. What he disagrees with, and I do too, is that we are somehow bound by rule to accept frivilous protests. We are not.

That can be important. Sure, we humor the manager the first time around. But the second time and beyond, in order to keep control over the game, we should refuse his frivilous protest and put him out of our misery. Else, we'd be accepting frivilous protest after frivilous protest, and the game would be delayed, and the spectators would get ugly, and it would all end with some team deciding not to take the field in protest. That should be avoided.

Where I live, there's no such thing as a protest fee. I haven't had a single protest make it to committee in almost 21 years of umpiring. The few times the "P" word was used, I was able to end it right there on the spot. I think this issue is far less imortant than everyone is making it out to be in this thread.

After reading a good number of posts by so-called EWS members (what does that mean, anyhow?) and eUmpire.com writers like Warren, and Garth, somwhere along the line y'all stopped listening to each other and started talking past each other.

In my opinion, everyone needs to listen just a little more often.

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
Mike,

I align myself with no group

The following note contains humor, perhaps beyond the scope of some readers, read with caution.

Of course not.. I would never want to join any club that would have me as a member!!

You are EWS in spirit! But you could never afford the dues, and may have problems with the initiation!

I better say some baseball stuff...uh...oh yeah:

Jackets... tucked or not tucked?? And is it "legal" to tuck in your jacket??

Mike Branch
Member, Founder
EWS

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Sounds to me like, "Humor the manager before chunking him," rather than, "You must accept the protest."

To me, anyhow.

I'm not sure how this play enters into the debate but as I read judgement calls are not protestable I wonder how the Royals protested the homerun that was disallowed vs Yankees when pine tar exceed the then proscribed limit. I don't believe the Royals challenged the umpires' jusgement (using the width of the plate) that the pine tar was too high on the bat. If not, the rule was clearly written. Personally I think I may have had two protests in nine years. As I recall each seemed without merit but rather than prolong an argument I signed the books and we moved the game.

[DDonnelly19]

I think the pine tar incident is a special case; the Royals may have protested because they believed the penalty did not coincide with the intent of the rule, and the AL president agreed.

I suppose an analogous situation (strictly off the top of my head) would be such -- 11-12YO kids playing on a large field (300' down the line). Outfield almost playing on the edge of the infield dirt. Batter hits a fair ball down the line, rolls down the warning track and under a gate down in the corner. BR would have easily had an inside-the-park HR had the ball stayed in play. Umpire correctly ruled ground-rule double, and manager protests, claiming that the award (2 bases) does not coincide with the level of ball. Of course, the protest committe agrees with the manager and upholds the protest.

The umpires got the call right, but the protest committee felt the rule should be changed. Although I agree with the Pine Tar ruling (since I am a Royals fan), that's a bad precedent to set, especially at the amateur level.

Dennis

[Ump20]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
I think the pine tar incident is a special case; the Royals may have protested because they believed the penalty did not coincide with the intent of the rule, and the AL president agreed.

I suppose an analogous situation (strictly off the top of my head) would be such -- 11-12YO kids playing on a large field (300' down the line). Outfield almost playing on the edge of the infield dirt. Batter hits a fair ball down the line, rolls down the warning track and under a gate down in the corner. BR would have easily had an inside-the-park HR had the ball stayed in play. Umpire correctly ruled ground-rule double, and manager protests, claiming that the award (2 bases) does not coincide with the level of ball. Of course, the protest committe agrees with the manager and upholds the protest.

The umpires got the call right, but the protest committee felt the rule should be changed. Although I agree with the Pine Tar ruling (since I am a Royals fan), that's a bad precedent to set, especially at the amateur level.

Dennis

At the Major League level it is not unusual to see a runner having easily gotten into 3B on a ground rule double being sent back to second. I would simply call that "unfortunate" and move the game along. I see no difference with a ball at the LL level that goes under a fence in the deep outfield. This is one of those things you go over in the pre-game with the coaches. I do not believe that MLB should have disallowed the overturn of Brett's homerun nor should LL overrule that umpire. It was clearly in the rulebook. Nettles had observed Brett's bat in mid-summer and alerted Billy Martin to the violation. Having said this I must confess to having done a JV game a number of years ago where football stands were located in left field about 500 feet from home plate. The home team manager said that was played as a "triple". I told both coaches we didn't have ground rule triples yet we "accommodated" them in that game. Fortunately for the integrity of the game no one hit the ball that far. Jim Simms/NY

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Ump20

At the Major League level it is not unusual to see a runner having easily gotten into 3B on a ground rule double being sent back to second. I would simply call that "unfortunate" and move the game along. I see no difference with a ball at the LL level that goes under a fence in the deep outfield. This is one of those things you go over in the pre-game with the coaches. I do not believe that MLB should have disallowed the overturn of Brett's homerun nor should LL overrule that umpire. It was clearly in the rulebook. Nettles had observed Brett's bat in mid-summer and alerted Billy Martin to the violation. Having said this I must confess to having done a JV game a number of years ago where football stands were located in left field about 500 feet from home plate. The home team manager said that was played as a "triple". I told both coaches we didn't have ground rule triples yet we "accommodated" them in that game. Fortunately for the integrity of the game no one hit the ball that far. Jim Simms/NY [/B]

At this level, no matter how hard the ball is hit, any batter's going to get at least 3B since the fielders would need to run at least 150' to get to the ball. I can see a ground-rule triple being justifiable at this level on such a large field, but such a stipulation needs to be set either prior to the game or before the start of the season/tournament. I wouldn't put it past some protest committees and say, "Gee, Skip, I see your point" and change the rule.

Unfortunately, I was placed in this position a few years ago. The manager thought it was crazy to give a kid a ground-rule double on such a large field, and he convinced me to rule such. At the time I thought I was doing the right thing, but now I realize that's not how to resolve seemingly "unfair" rules. I wouldn't have put it past the manager to cry foul and ask the tournament directors for a ruling, and knowing some of them they would have ruled it a ground-rule triple.

Isn't it somewhat "unethical" to change a rule during a season? I realize the penalty for the pine tar was somewhat unjustified, but couldn't they have told Brett "Tough shit" and make the change during the off-season? If the league president/commissioner can decide to change this some August afternoon, what's to stop him from making balks a two-base award?

Dennis

[Ump20]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19

At this level, no matter how hard the ball is hit, any batter's going to get at least 3B since the fielders would need to run at least 150' to get to the ball. I can see a ground-rule triple being justifiable at this level on such a large field, but such a stipulation needs to be set either prior to the game or before the start of the season/tournament. I wouldn't put it past some protest committees and say, "Gee, Skip, I see your point" and change the rule.

Unfortunately, I was placed in this position a few years ago. The manager thought it was crazy to give a kid a ground-rule double on such a large field, and he convinced me to rule such. At the time I thought I was doing the right thing, but now I realize that's not how to resolve seemingly "unfair" rules. I wouldn't have put it past the manager to cry foul and ask the tournament directors for a ruling, and knowing some of them they would have ruled it a ground-rule triple.

Isn't it somewhat "unethical" to change a rule during a season? I realize the penalty for the pine tar was somewhat unjustified, but couldn't they have told Brett "Tough shit" and make the change during the off-season? If the league president/commissioner can decide to change this some August afternoon, what's to stop him from making balks a two-base award?

Dennis [/B]

I empathize with the LL situation you described. At that level I too have "made exceptions" to the rules with the concurrence of both managers. In other words a ball that barely rolls under a distant fence as the runner crosses the plate could be held to be a homerun in some games. Before the game begins perhaps we say "It's all you can get". Absent a safety issue we agree before hand that is the rule. I agree that the "club rule" or exception should be incorpoarted into the ground rules for that league at that field. But another problem is that at lower levels we sometimes try to "accomodate" our customers i.e. the league or the team even though that is contrary to the rules. Then we try to incorporate these rules or judgement exceptions into other games especially those played at higher levels.

In my opinion this is exactly what was happening in the long thread on the "legality" of the reversal of judgement calls.