Protests and Authoritative Opinion Revisited.

[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.