Are protest rulings precedents?

[DJWickham]

In a post about his poor Red Socks, Jim Porter wrote:

I wish now this had gone to protest. It might've set a precedent, and that other changed call thread would never have happened.

This raises a question I've had for some time. Are protest rulings any precedent? I haven't found any place in which the protest rulings are collected, and for recent years, the MLB protest rulings are simply press releases that do not explain the reasoning.

Should we, for example, take note that the 1934 protest of Bill Klem's judgment non-call of an IF was sustained (on the otherwise erroneous ground that a fly ball that drops onto the infield is an infield fly.) The ruling reportedly caused Klem to utter what may be the most important rule interpretation of all: the rules "were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."

[Jim Porter]

I have two thoughts on this.

1. No umpire wants his ruling overturned. So, if a protest committee has decided that a judgment call with following continuous action cannot be changed, I doubt any umpires will be changing their judgment calls when there's continuous action following. Know what I mean?

2. Upheld protests have invariably made it into the rulebook or official materials, whether it be as a rules change, clarification, casebook comment, interpretation, or case play. Upheld protests certainly do set precedents.

Regarding the Klem call, there have been precedents, changes, and clarifications since the 1934 protest. Therefore, it means little to us today, except as a peek at the history of the evolution of today's infield fly rule.

[Rog]

..... 1934 .....
the rules "were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."

Perhaps "Father Time" is to blame? Since, in 2001 it seems lawyers greatly out number gentleman.....

Originally posted by DJWickham
In a post about his poor Red Socks, Jim Porter wrote:

This raises a question I've had for some time. Are protest rulings any precedent? I haven't found any place in which the protest rulings are collected, and for recent years, the MLB protest rulings are simply press releases that do not explain the reasoning.

Should we, for example, take note that the 1934 protest of Bill Klem's judgment non-call of an IF was sustained (on the otherwise erroneous ground that a fly ball that drops onto the infield is an infield fly.) The ruling reportedly caused Klem to utter what may be the most important rule interpretation of all: the rules "were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
In a post about his poor Red Socks, Jim Porter wrote:

This raises a question I've had for some time. Are protest rulings any precedent? I haven't found any place in which the protest rulings are collected, and for recent years, the MLB protest rulings are simply press releases that do not explain the reasoning.

Should we, for example, take note that the 1934 protest of Bill Klem's judgment non-call of an IF was sustained (on the otherwise erroneous ground that a fly ball that drops onto the infield is an infield fly.) The ruling reportedly caused Klem to utter what may be the most important rule interpretation of all: the rules "were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."

....for the LONG answer!

Any ruling of a Protest Committee, or a League President acting as the Protest Committee, is a ruling on that subject for the league in question. That is why in the case of the George Brett pine tar incident, for instance, there was a casebook comment added to the rule to give continuing effect to that decision for ALL professional leagues. The real question should be, for WHOM are such rulings a precedent? In the case of MLB rulings, I am sure the umpires concerned would be given at least a transcript of any contrary ruling or an interim Instruction so they won't repeat the error that produced the successful protest. It takes much longer to amend the rules themselves, however.

I strongly suspect that a number of NAPBL interpretations are, in fact, the direct result of successful protests over the initial interpretations. The ruling on a foul tip needing to be ultimately caught by the catcher is one possible case in point. One way or the other, though, the league involved provides a means for the ruling to be passed to the relevant officials. Remember, MLB's OBR doesn't exist so officials of amateur leagues can call by those rules. As Jim Porter correctly notes, the truly important precedents will find their way into a medium we can access eventually.

On the Klem decision, IF you were an MLB umpire the answer would be YES you certainly should take note of the decision. What the league was saying there is that at this level such a fly ball MUST be considered catchable with ordinary effort by players of that calibre, if it falls in the infield. That has the force of a league direction on interpreting the Infield Fly rule, but only for MLB officials. I don't have a copy of the current MLB Instructions, so I can only speculate, but this may still be the case even today. It is fair to assume that the fact this interpretation hasn't since filtered down to the NAPBL is evidence that it was always intended as a ruling ONLY for MLB. Remember, MLB is perpetually trying to maintain lock step with the expectations of the fans on most calls. I think the rest of us still have considerable judgement to exercise on this play.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 27th, 2001 at 01:12 PM]

[DJWickham]

You clearly are correct that protests can and do effect changes and comments to the rules, and I have no doubt that they affect what goes into NAPBL and PBUC publications. There often is a protest lurking in the history of the rule changes.

But, I am intrigued at the notion that the protest ruling is binding on the league (especially now that there is no league president). There does not appear to be any collection of protest decisions - - and no one appears to study or cite the protest decisions as authority. Such a collection would be very helpful in rules interpretion.

Do you know if MLB has ever distributed a copy of a decision or summary of protests to each team and umpire (not just the affected teams and umpire crew)? That is, if they are not collected or distributed, how does umpire crew #2 know the reasoning and result of a protest in a case involving crew #1. Has any league president cited a prior protest ruling as binding on him?

P.S. If I were a MLU, I could think of no better compliment than "he makes mistakes that only Bill Klem would have made." Then again, Klem was a gentleman and I am lawyer.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
Do you know if MLB has ever distributed a copy of a decision or summary of protests to each team and umpire (not just the affected teams and umpire crew)? That is, if they are not collected or distributed, how does umpire crew #2 know the reasoning and result of a protest in a case involving crew #1. Has any league president cited a prior protest ruling as binding on him?

No, Dennis, I don't "know" since the Instructions for MLU's are apparently only issued to them, and in loose leaf form. I would be really surprised to find that these weren't regularly updated with new policy or the results of league decisions, whether arising from protests or otherwise. It is likely that the MLU's instructions are made available to the PBUC, because the NAPBL is represented on the official playing rules committee. I view the loose leaf Instructions to MLU's as at times interim, at others semi-permanent and at still others as permanent e.g. in the case of specific instructions covering a particular MLB ground.

Bottom line, though, is NO I don't "know" any of that for a fact. There may be some conclusions that might be drawn from certain of the professional interpretations appearing in JEA, especially where the history is supporting of a change resulting from reversing or overruling an earlier interpretation, but I haven't sat down and line-by-lined the JEA to find that out either.

Cheers,

[oregonblue]

Squire Wickham, Unless you have interior plumbing, the fact that you are a lawyer does not preclude you being considered a gentleman. At least as long as you umpire. :-)! LOL!

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oregonblue
Squire Wickham, Unless you have interior plumbing, the fact that you are a lawyer does not preclude you being considered a gentleman. At least as long as you umpire. :-)! LOL!

Regarding being an umpire and a lawyer. The epitaph on the tombstone read...

"Here lies a lawyer and an honest man"

To which the passerby remarked, "What do you know, there are two people in that grave."

[GarthB]

A truck drive who had just gone through a long and painful divorce and felt screwed by both his and wife's lawyers had started a habit of running over lawyers. Whenever one was walking along the road, he would swerve and run him over.

One day, he had run down three lawyers when he noticed a priest walking along the side of the road. He stopped and offered the priest a ride.

About two minutes later he noticed a lawyer up ahead, and out of habit began to swerve to hit him. At the last second he remembered the priest along side him and swerved back onto the road. Just then he hears a "thump".

"Geez, Father" he says, I'm sorry. I almost hit that lawyer."

"Don't worry, my son," the priest replied, "I got him with the door."

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by oregonblue
Squire Wickham, Unless you have interior plumbing, the fact that you are a lawyer does not preclude you being considered a gentleman. At least as long as you umpire. :-)! LOL!

I'll second that motion to declare that Dennis is still human despite being a lawyer, thanks mainly to his having the great good sense to also be an umpire! Now, I only hope he can appreciate the humor that follows:

A question on the Sydney Harbour Ferry Master's exam

Q: You are heading across the harbour one fine afternoon when you notice a group of lawyers in full regalia jump into the water from North Head in an apparent mass suicide attempt. What do you do?

A: Radio base for the harbour booms to control the slick!

I'm sorry, Dennis. That was most unkind. I hope you won't take it personally.

Cheers,

[Rog]

Well Garth I must admit you pulled that one off rather smoothly.
On a similar note, any good lawyer or priest can attest to the fact that there are laws requiring how deep a person must be buried.
Most people must be buried between 6 - 10 feet. But, all lawyers MUST be buried between 15 - 20 feet deep.
Now, when this first came to my attention I inquired why? So, after doing a bit of research I finally found the answer. Oddly enough the answer was found in the sociology section of the New York Library.
The facts of the matter were that: "Deep down", lawyers are good people too!" ;-}

Originally posted by GarthB
A truck drive who had just gone through a long and painful divorce and felt screwed by both his and wife's lawyers had started a habit of running over lawyers. Whenever one was walking along the road, he would swerve and run him over.

One day, he had run down three lawyers when he noticed a priest walking along the side of the road. He stopped and offered the priest a ride.

About two minutes later he noticed a lawyer up ahead, and out of habit began to swerve to hit him. At the last second he remembered the priest along side him and swerved back onto the road. Just then he hears a "thump".

"Geez, Father" he says, I'm sorry. I almost hit that lawyer."

"Don't worry, my son," the priest replied, "I got him with the door."

[DJWickham]

I was sure that one of those jokes would have violated forum rules. If not, this one will:

To quote Woody Allen:

Some people hink about sex all the time; some people think about sex some of the time; and some people never think about sex; they become lawyers.

Now, let's get back to baseball!