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,