Protests and Authoritative Opinion Revisited.

[Rich Ives]

I was one of the folks on eTeamz arguing that the umpire i fact MUST accept a protest (as opposed to SHOULD), mainly because, as BJ pointed out, the umpire may be wrong.

It seems to me, that if the umpire gets to decide whether or not to accept a protest, that the potentially guilty party is making the decision as to whether he's guilty or not (Sorry officer, you can't give me that speeding ticket, I've decided I'm not guilty.) Not a good thing I think.

4.19 allows a protest when the manager claims a decision is in violation of the rules. As long as he claims violation (right or wrong) he apparently has the right. In addition, I would argue that the 4.19 statement " . . the decision of the League President shall be final." means that an umpire is not empowered to make the final ruling as it would usurp a power specifically granted to the LP.

Which leads to "OK, I'm protesting on the grounds that your refusal to accept my protest is a violation of the rules, specifically 4.19 which states that the LP gets the final decision, not the umpire."

I think LL and Pro have it right, accept it and get on with the game.