Protests and Authoritative Opinion Revisited.

[Warren Willson]

In another thread, now closed, Dave Hensley makes the following post and the issues it raised were never properly addressed:

---

Moose's argument that an umpire should "accept" any protest, without attempting to quash it because it is over a judgment call, is supported by at least two authoritative opinions I am aware of.

This issue has been the subject of lively debate in various discussion forums for years. Last year, it came up on the eteamz.com discussion board right around this time. The focus at that time was on Little League's protest rule, and whether an umpire could or should "reject" a protest because it was over a judgment decision rather than a disputed rule interpretation. It so happened one of the participants in that discussion was going to be attending a Little League rules clinic that very weekend, that was to be attended by Andy Konyar, UIC for Little League Baseball. He took that question (and a number of others) to the meeting and came back with the gospel according to Andy K. On this issue, Andy supported my argument (which is the same as Moose's) that an umpire should acknowledge and announce a coach's protest when it is made, and not attempt to "deny" or "disallow" or "reject" the protest. Ruling on the validity of the protest is the protest committee's job, not the umpire's.

The other authoritative opinion is the Professional Interpretation as reported by Jim Evans in Baseball Rules Annotated. He says:

> Professional Interpretation: At times, a manager may insist on lodging
> a protest on a decision which is, in essence, a judgment call. After
> explaining the prohibition against protesting judgment calls, the
> umpire should go ahead and accept the protest in order to proceed with
> the game in a timely manner. It will then be the league president’s
> responsibility to nullify the improperly lodged protest.

There can be no doubt that this remains the current professional interpretation, as just about every protest in MLB you read about is, in fact, over a disputed judgment call. The homerun that should have been fan interference in the ALCS game a couple of years ago was protested - protest denied, judgment decision. Last year, the Rangers protested a balk call. Bzzzzt.

One other reason the umpire should not attempt to deny a protest on the field is because umpires' rulings frequently (hell, almost always) involve both judgment and rule application. Sometimes, it's not completely clear whether the argument is over the umpire's judgment, or his interpretation of the applicable rule. Rather than hash that out on the field, it's better and fairer to let a protest committee sort through the facts and resolve the matter. Infield fly rule is a good example of a rule that has equal parts judgment and rule application, and depending on how the umpire describes his decision making process, what appeared to be a judgment call could have indeed been a misapplication of the rule.

This situation (coach demanding to protest a judgment call) is best summed up with the old joke about the guy who took his wife camping and deer hunting, and then the next morning, hearing a gunshot followed by loud arguing, he ran to the scene and saw his wife holding her gun on a terrified park ranger with his hands up, saying "OK, lady, OK. He's your deer. But at least let me get my saddle off of him."

In this situation, let the coach have his deer. Then use his protest fee to treat the protest committee to beer and pizza.

---

I believe the reasoning here is beguiling but erroneous. Here is my rebuttal:

It so happened one of the participants in that discussion was going to be attending a Little League rules clinic that very weekend, that was to be attended by Andy Konyar, UIC for Little League Baseball. He took that question (and a number of others) to the meeting and came back with the gospel according to Andy K. On this issue, Andy supported my argument (which is the same as Moose's) that an umpire should acknowledge and announce a coach's protest when it is made, and not attempt to "deny" or "disallow" or "reject" the protest. Ruling on the validity of the protest is the protest committee's job, not the umpire's.

LL Inc is an organisation which has many non-accredited officials who may not be aware of the appropriate rules under which a protest may legitimately be lodged. Often these are moms and dads who started out being recruited from the stands on game day. With that in mind, I'm sure, Mr Konyar has made a decision that is perfectly appropriate for leagues operating under the rules of LL Inc. That decision has no real validity outside that organisation.

The other authoritative opinion is the Professional Interpretation as reported by Jim Evans in Baseball Rules Annotated. He says:

> Professional Interpretation: At times, a manager may insist on lodging
> a protest on a decision which is, in essence, a judgment call. After
> explaining the prohibition against protesting judgment calls, the
> umpire should go ahead and accept the protest in order to proceed with
> the game in a timely manner. It will then be the league president’s
> responsibility to nullify the improperly lodged protest.

There can be no doubt that this remains the current professional interpretation, as just about every protest in MLB you read about is, in fact, over a disputed judgment call. The homerun that should have been fan interference in the ALCS game a couple of years ago was protested - protest denied, judgment decision. Last year, the Rangers protested a balk call. Bzzzzt.

This decision is certainly more valid and is entirely appropriate for MLB professional officials. Paying fans at MLB games won't sit still for officials arguing with managers about whether or not to accept a protest. Dave has apparently failed to notice, however, one very important word from the JEA report of the professional interpretation; the word "insists".

It doesn't make ANY sense to talk about someone "insisting" (sic) unless at least their first attempt at a protest has been rejected for some reason. If such an attempt HAS been rejected, then by whom and under what authority if not by the umpire on the field exercising his right under OBR 4.19 to REJECT the protest?

One other reason the umpire should not attempt to deny a protest on the field is because umpires' rulings frequently (hell, almost always) involve both judgment and rule application. Sometimes, it's not completely clear whether the argument is over the umpire's judgment, or his interpretation of the applicable rule. Rather than hash that out on the field, it's better and fairer to let a protest committee sort through the facts and resolve the matter.

This is not a reason for failing to do what the rules require in this case. "It's too much trouble" should never be an excuse for serious officials. The best approach is to ASK the manager exactly what it is that he's protesting:

1. If he doesn't know - do not accept the protest
2. If he explains an objection to a judgement call - do not accept the protest
3. If he explains an apparent rule misapplication - discuss it with your partner(s) and if you agree you are correct, or you cannot agree on an alternative correct ruling, accept the protest. Otherwise, change the ruling.
4. If you AND your partners aren't sure - accept the protest.

The chances of coming across the situation in item 4, where both you AND your partner(s) aren't sure, ought to be very, VERY rare. That may not be the case in LL Inc, however, so I fully understand Mr Konyar's ruling. I also understand the MLB professional ruling as it affects paying fans in MLB ball parks. There is an awful LOT of ground between those two positions, both amateur and professional, and I strongly suggest that in that no-mans-land OBR protests are best handled by abiding by the provisions of OBR 4.19 and 9.02(b).

Cheers,

[BJ Moose]

I note there was some EDITING going on... maybe all for the better. Here is a "G" rated "counter" Note I cannot "quote" because I do not read WW posts. I know what it says, however.

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.

PLease do not confuse the cases of a GAme under protest, and what will happen when the protest is considered.

If Manager protests in the 3rd inning because he says my hat is ugly... SO WHAT?? Ok, fine. Duly noted, now lets play. The world will go on in the EXACT SAME MANNER as if I told the manager, "NO YOU CANT PROTEST!" Again, I simply, say, so why not accept. It makes NO difference.

I use this silly example to make a point. I help train umpires (I think that sound you just heard was WW, and others Ralphing!) but I digress. We cover this point. I tell them, it is not up to them to ascertain if a protest if technically proper for reason. Accept and move on (see CONDITIONS BELOW). Because it would be MUCH worse for an umpire to be pigheaded about NOT allowing, and NOT allow, and then find out eventually that the protest MAY have been valid.. in other words..the umpire was wrong.

I simply content that there is no reason to take that chance.

NOTE: Cases of protest TIMING.. well, absolutely DO NOT ACCEPT. Play happens... 2 pitches later here comes coach who wants to protest my interp of the PLAY. Sorry coach, no can do...I do teach this. This one you don't accept.

But, silly example #2. I call sliding runner OUT at 2nd on tag play. Coach argues (nicely of course). Says GET HELP...I decline, "Bosco, I saw it clearly!" Coach argues, I protest! UH? Why, I ponder. Coach, you know you can't protest my judgement call! Uh, yeah, but it's Tuesday, and you have to call runners SAFE at 2nd on Tuesdays, its in the book! So I protest.

OK, this is really a stupid case... because, being the most excellent official, I would TALK this guy OUT of this protest... BUT, IF HE INSISTS (in other words, he (coach) is a total moron) then we will take the 30 seconds to make the notation and CONTINUE. The moron coach will be dealt with by his authorities.

Let's be clear about reality here. How many times in the last 5 years have I heard.. "I protest!" MANY... How many times does a the game actually get PLAYED under protest (officially)? Practically none. Because we can, and should, talk them OUT of it by explaining the righteousness of our position, since we are, of course, right.

Mike Branch
Member EWS

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
Moose's argument that an umpire should "accept" any protest, without attempting to quash it

Uh Oh.. (sorry, I looked).

Point of order and typing saver. I never said this, I would NEVER advocate such. As my other note tries to indicate: YES ABSOLUTELY you try to SQUASH a protest over judgment calls. Of course!!

But after every attempt is made to get Bosco the Moron Coach to see that that his protest won't fly... and he absolutely INSISTS... then note it, and play.

Mike B
EWS

[llblue]

Apparently the quote attributed to Konyar is either misunderstood or some judgement was passed on the umpire asking the question.

The directive as was given to the group at the Eastern Region clinic this weekend was that the umpire is to decide the validity of the protest.

Anything that goes directly from the field to the books to the protest committee must have been done by umpires who know nothing.

Accept the protest if it is indeed valid, decline it if it's not, it's not a difficult issue, some people just don't understand the rules so they take shortcuts.

It must be incredibly embarassing for the umpire who allows a protest because a senior league bat was used in a little league game, the batter hit a home run and won the game. Then the umpire wipes the runs for illegal equipment. I highly doubt Konyar would let that stand because it's obviously not the right ruling and should have been fixed on the field or at least with a call to the UIC, DUIC or DA.

[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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by 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.

It's clearly against the rules to accept a protest on a judgment call. There's little question that Warren is right there: "No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire." But, as everyone knows, I'm perfectly willing to accept official "changes" to the rules, such as: Accept the protest in PRO.

I think it's clear Warren is also right: There's a pragmatic reason. The fans don't want to sit around for 10 minutes while the umpire and skipper argue whether the "event" is subject to protest.

But at the amateur level, if the protest is free, I would spend the time educating the managers. Otherwise, I say "He's out," and the manager comes to lodge an official protest. I can see a game where Team Blue files 61 protests, ranging from my hat through unshined shoes to that called third strike, while Team Red files 41 protests (they won by 10) on much the same subjects.

But one thing I don't understand at all. Someone wrote he never said he would not try to talk a skipper out of a protest. But in that same post he says, "Accept the protest and get on with it." Isin't that a distinction without a difference?

[Rich Ives]

Carl wrote: "It's clearly against the rules to accept a protest on a judgment call. There's little question that Warren is right there: 'No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire.'"

I have no problem with the notion that no protest be GRANTED on judgement calls. While the rule says no protest is to be accepted on judgement calls, it doesn't say by whom. There is a school of thought that says the umpire has the right of refusal. There is another that says that they don't, and a third that says they shouldn't.

Of course, 4.19 says the league sets the procedure so one should really find out what the leagues position is first and follow it.

I just think that, absent a league procedure and as the final decision has been granted to the LP, that it must be permitted to reach him to make the decision that is clearly his.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Carl wrote: "It's clearly against the rules to accept a protest on a judgment call. There's little question that Warren is right there: 'No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire.'"

I have no problem with the notion that no protest be GRANTED on judgement calls. While the rule says no protest is to be accepted on judgement calls, it doesn't say by whom. There is a school of thought that says the umpire has the right of refusal. There is another that says that they don't, and a third that says they shouldn't.

Of course, 4.19 says the league sets the procedure so one should really find out what the leagues position is first and follow it.

I just think that, absent a league procedure and as the final decision has been granted to the LP, that it must be permitted to reach him to make the decision that is clearly his.

Rich: I don't mind your thinking that a protest should be permitted as opposed to granted. But the OBR language is very clear, wouldn't you agree?

Permit: To afford opportunity or possibility for.
Grant: To concede; acknowledge

Now I freely admit there are other definitions that somewhat blur the distinction. (grin)

Still and all, the idea of "permit" means "to allow" in the OBR and protests are NOT allowed on judgment calls.

By the book now. Right?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 19th, 2001 at 01:18 PM]

[Rich Ives]

I was raised by a lawyer (didn't follow in the footsteps) so I learned to argue that the words mean what you want them to mean :-) Gotta be an advocate for your cause!

I don't think either of us is going to change our mind though.

p.s. Speaking of words, check out the eUmpire articles - I think there's an "allude" where the intent was "elude"

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
I was raised by a lawyer (didn't follow in the footsteps) so I learned to argue that the words mean what you want them to mean :-) Gotta be an advocate for your cause!

I don't think either of us is going to change our mind though.

p.s. Speaking of words, check out the eUmpire articles - I think there's an "allude" where the intent was "elude"

Rich, I'll be happy to change that when you figure out that you and I don't have a single "mind." You wrote: "... either of us is going to change our mind." We have two of them: "...to change our minds." (Which article?)

[Rich Ives]

Darn - thought I hit the "s" - typing isn't a strong suit.


Article: "Pick a Zone, Any Zone - Part III" - 1st Sentence - shouldn't "alluded" be "eluded?"

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose

Uh Oh.. (sorry, I looked).

Point of order and typing saver. I never said this, I would NEVER advocate such. As my other note tries to indicate: YES ABSOLUTELY you try to SQUASH a protest over judgment calls. Of course!!

But after every attempt is made to get Bosco the Moron Coach to see that that his protest won't fly... and he absolutely INSISTS... then note it, and play.

Mike B
EWS

Uh, neither did I! What you have quoted is from Dave Hensley's post, not mine.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
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.

Rich, umpires are supposed to be impartial arbiters and "representatives of the league and baseball". Making them a guilty party to the dispute, as you have here, is not entirely fair. I can certainly understand your point about appealing to the offender, but umpires are required to accept protests on rule misapplications. Your suggestion that an umpire might deliberately not see the decision as a rule misapplication might be offensive to some of us, and more pointedly STILL doesn't prevent the offended coach from having recourse to the league. I seriously doubt that most officials would deliberately misjudge a protest in this way. Why? Because they have the opportunity to correct their incorrect call right there on the diamond, without a protest committee's intervention or the subsequent damage to their reputation with the assignor. Assignor's hate successful protests, especially after the league president has complained about their official refusing a legitimate protest on the diamond!

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.

No, Rich, he has the right IF and only if the umpire agrees that this is a violation of the rules. The rule is certainly 4.19, but the right to enforce that rule comes in OBR 9.01(b) - the umpire is responsible to "enforce all of these rules". Sure the decision of the league president is final, IF the protest gets that far. The purpose of OBR 4.19 is to weed out protests that have no chance of being upheld! This is designed to save wasting the league president's time. Is it a judgement decision? Too bad. Is it too late? Too bad. Was it not properly notified? Too bad. If the umpire fails in his effort to weed out an invalid protest, and the manager/coach "insists", of course the protest should be noted (never accepted) and forwarded for the league to decide, so the game can proceed. The issue is that forwarding protests ought not to become automatic, and the umpire has a part to play in weeding out inappropriate protests and correcting rule misapplications on the diamond if he can.

The underlying principles are these:

1. The appeal to protest has to be appropriate under OBR 9.02(a) and 9.02(b)

2. The appeal to protest has to be made at the appropriate time under OBR 4.19

3. The umpire has to be given the opportunity to correct a rule misapplication on the diamond under OBR 4.19 and OBR 9.02(c)

Simply forwarding everything along denies these proper steps, and means EVERY protest will ultimately be heard by a league president, or his protest committee, when not every protest should be heard by that official under the rules. The rules have delegated some of the league president's authority to the umpire on the field. He MUST be allowed to exercise that authority and reject inappropriate appeals. If an umpire will CHEAT on his responsibility here, then he will cheat elsewhere as well. That is a much bigger problem for an assignor than an umpire simply being mistaken over the nature of a protest. Even the "mistaken" official will be under scrutiny thereafter. It just wouldn't be worth the risk of losing what we enjoy doing and getting paid for.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 19th, 2001 at 06:18 PM]

[GarthB]

Yes Rich, it should be. I had already asked for the correction last week prior to the article being posted, but apparently it was overlooked. I will ask again.

GB

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Darn - thought I hit the "s" - typing isn't a strong suit.


Article: "Pick a Zone, Any Zone - Part III" - 1st Sentence - shouldn't "alluded" be "eluded?"

Yes, it's "eluded." My fault: I missed it. We'll get it corrected because Garth and I are of one minds.