Will this protester win?

lc_huxter · #1 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 03:50pm

I received this email, so I was not the one screaming.
Here is there protest sent into the league.

WE WERE HOME TEAM AND UP TO BAT, WE HAD 1 OUT A RUNNER ON FIRST AND THIRD. OUR BATTER POPPED UP ONE THAT THEIR SHORT STOP CAUGHT. THE ANGELS THEN TRIED TO GET THE RUNNER ON FIRST OUT AND HE GOT BACK THE THE BASE AND CALLED SAFE BY THE UMPIRE. WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON OUR PLAYER ON THIRD TOOK OFF FOR HOME without TAGGING UP TO THIRD BASE HE CROSSED HOME PLATE AND WAS STANDING BEHIND HOME PLATE AND STARTED TO THE DUGOUT. I WAS ABLE TO GET HIS ATTENTION AND CALL HIM BACK TO THIRD BASE. HE NEVER ENTERED THE DUGOUT OR REMOVED HIS HELMET. THE OPPOSING TEAM COACH HAD HIS PLAYER COME FROM HOME PLATE AND TAG OUR PLAYER WHO WAS STANDING ON THIRD BASE.THE UMPIRE CALLED HIM SAFE AND CALLED TIME FOR THE PLAY. THE OPPOSING COACH THEN CALLED FOR A TIME OUT AND BEGAN ARGUING THAT OUR PLAYER WAS OUT AND THAT WAS THE END OF THE GAME.
THIS IS WHERE THE VIOLATION IS BELIEVED TO BE, IT IS THEIR CONTENTION THAT OUR PLAYER HAD TO DOUBLE TAG HOME PLATE. ONCE WHEN HE CROSSED HOME RUNNING IN AND THEN AGAIN RUNNING STRAIGHT DOWN THE LINE TO RETURN TO THE THIRD BASE.
IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE. AT THAT TIME IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR TIME OUT THE SCORE WAS 12 TO 11 THEIR FAVOR, WE HAD TWO OUTS, A RUNNER ON FIRST AND THIRD.

So does he have to retouch home before returning to 3rd base?

cmckenna · #2 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 04:11pm

all bases must be retagged in order when returning to a previous base.

In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.09. In such cases, the runner may go directly to his original base.

[Edited by cmckenna on May 6th, 2005 at 05:18 PM]

DG · #3 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 05:22pm

You don't say whether this is FED or OBR so I will give the following from J/R. I am assuming OBR since you mention the "league".

"A runner is vulnerable to appeal if (1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning) by such base (within a body's length) the final time. [7.02] [7.04d] [7.05i] [7.10b] An advance or return "by" a base does not include a complete bypass (outside a body's length) in an attempt to reach a subsequent base safely." From the sound of it, the player missed home while running in a direct line back to 3B so he was probably near enough to the plate.

Neither side is right. One side says he has to retouch home, and the other side says he must ONLY return to 3rd. Since neither side's argument appears completely correct, and the call on the field does, then the play stands.

[Edited by DG on May 6th, 2005 at 06:36 PM]

Rich Ives · #4 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 06:17pm

Neither side is right. One side says he has to retouch home, and the other side says he must ONLY return to 3rd. Since neither side's argument appears completely correct, and the call on the field does, then the play stands.

How did you get this? He has to retag home. The "double tag" the poster referred to was the initial tag advancing and then the retag on the way back to third.

Protest denied.

DG · #5 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 06:56pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Neither side is right. One side says he has to retouch home, and the other side says he must ONLY return to 3rd. Since neither side's argument appears completely correct, and the call on the field does, then the play stands.

How did you get this? He has to retag home. The "double tag" the poster referred to was the initial tag advancing and then the retag on the way back to third.

Protest denied.

My only opinion offered was on who was correct in their appeal, ie neither. The quote I offered was from J/R which said he had to be within a body's length of home on his return to 3B. If he was on a direct line to 3B when he missed home then he met the J/R interp.

If you think he has to retag on his return to 3B why is protest denied, since that was the protest.

Rich Ives · #6 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 07:37pm

The protest was:

"IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE."

He has to retouch. Protest denied.

Personally, I think the "within a body length" in J/R is absolute bullcrap. Everyone in the ballpark saw a miss of a base and the umpire says "close enough"? It'll never fly. J/R has been wrong about several things. I think this is another.

DG · #7 (**permalink**) Fri May 06, 2005, 10:22pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The protest was:

"IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE."

He has to retouch. Protest denied.

Personally, I think the "within a body length" in J/R is absolute bullcrap. Everyone in the ballpark saw a miss of a base and the umpire says "close enough"? It'll never fly. J/R has been wrong about several things. I think this is another.

Everybody entitled to an opinion, but again, the protest was that he should have to tag home on his way back, so why you keep denying the protest, when you agree with it (and clearly disagree with J/R)? And who is the authority that says J/R is wrong?

GarthB · #8 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 12:05am

And who is the authority that says J/R is wrong?

Apparently a little league coach who tries to umpire.

akalsey · #9 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 01:35am

Quote:

the protest was that he should have to tag home on his way back

No, the umpire called him out because he DIDN'T touch home on his way back. The offensive team is protesting that this is an incorrect call.

From the description (the player was headed back to the home dugout) it sounds as if the player headed in a direct line back to third from wherever he was standing, bypassing home plate and perhaps not even entering the general vicinity of home.

With the limited information given about the location of the player prior to returning to third, and the fact that the protester admits his runner did not retouch home plate, there is not enough evidence to rule that the umpire incorrectly applied the rules. Protest denied.

jicecone · #10 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 06:36am

Quote:

Originally posted by akalsey

Quote:

the protest was that he should have to tag home on his way back

No, the umpire called him out because he DIDN'T touch home on his way back. The offensive team is protesting that this is an incorrect call.

From the description (the player was headed back to the home dugout) it sounds as if the player headed in a direct line back to third from wherever he was standing, bypassing home plate and perhaps not even entering the general vicinity of home.

With the limited information given about the location of the player prior to returning to third, and the fact that the protester admits his runner did not retouch home plate, there is not enough evidence to rule that the umpire incorrectly applied the rules. Protest denied.

Incorrect, its PROTEST DENIED.

DG · #11 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 06:56am

Quote:

Originally posted by akalsey

Quote:

the protest was that he should have to tag home on his way back

No, the umpire called him out because he DIDN'T touch home on his way back. The offensive team is protesting that this is an incorrect call.

From the description (the player was headed back to the home dugout) it sounds as if the player headed in a direct line back to third from wherever he was standing, bypassing home plate and perhaps not even entering the general vicinity of home.

With the limited information given about the location of the player prior to returning to third, and the fact that the protester admits his runner did not retouch home plate, there is not enough evidence to rule that the umpire incorrectly applied the rules. Protest denied.

"THE UMPIRE CALLED HIM SAFE AND CALLED TIME FOR THE PLAY. THE OPPOSING COACH THEN CALLED FOR A TIME OUT AND BEGAN ARGUING THAT OUR PLAYER WAS OUT AND THAT WAS THE END OF THE GAME.
THIS IS WHERE THE VIOLATION IS BELIEVED TO BE, IT IS THEIR CONTENTION THAT OUR PLAYER HAD TO DOUBLE TAG HOME PLATE. ONCE WHEN HE CROSSED HOME RUNNING IN AND THEN AGAIN RUNNING STRAIGHT DOWN THE LINE TO RETURN TO THE THIRD BASE.
IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE. AT THAT TIME IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR TIME OUT THE SCORE WAS 12 TO 11 THEIR FAVOR, WE HAD TWO OUTS, A RUNNER ON FIRST AND THIRD."

The visiting team lost. The umpire called the runner safe. The visiting team is the one protesting because it would have been the third out and they would have won. Instead they lost. The home team is not protesting that they should have lost.

thumpferee · #12 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 09:24am

You say this is an email you received, then it seems you put your own thoughts into the quote.

"THIS IS WHERE THE VIOLATION IS BELIEVED TO BE, IT IS THEIR CONTENTION THAT OUR PLAYER HAD TO DOUBLE TAG HOME PLATE. ONCE WHEN HE CROSSED HOME RUNNING IN AND THEN AGAIN RUNNING STRAIGHT DOWN THE LINE TO RETURN TO THE THIRD BASE.
IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE. AT THAT TIME IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR TIME OUT THE SCORE WAS 12 TO 11 THEIR FAVOR, WE HAD TWO OUTS, A RUNNER ON FIRST AND THIRD".

Are these your opinions?

If they are then you are confusing us all!

Your player needed to retouch or at least come pretty damn close. You said he was heading toward the dugout. Which side?

I find it hard to believe he retouched or even came close in this situation.

Protestable? I don't know.

Was there a proper appeal?

thumpferee · #13 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 09:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The protest was:

"IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE."

He has to retouch. Protest denied.

Personally, I think the "within a body length" in J/R is absolute bullcrap. Everyone in the ballpark saw a miss of a base and the umpire says "close enough"? It'll never fly. J/R has been wrong about several things. I think this is another.

I think those are huxters' words and not of the protesting coach.

I may be wrong though, but it doesn't make sense because he also says, "IT IS THEIR CONTENTION THAT OUR PLAYER HAD TO DOUBLE TAG HOME PLATE".

The opposing coach is protesting that their player needed to retouch home before returning to third.

Rich Ives · #14 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 02:31pm

The original post:

WE WERE HOME TEAM AND UP TO BAT, . . .

OUR PLAYER ON THIRD TOOK OFF FOR HOME without TAGGING UP TO THIRD BASE HE CROSSED HOME PLATE AND . . .

IT IS THEIR CONTENTION THAT OUR PLAYER HAD TO DOUBLE TAG HOME PLATE. . . .

IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE.

The protest is that the runner did NOT need to re-tag third.

Protest denied!!

Rich Ives · #15 (**permalink**) Sat May 07, 2005, 02:35pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB
And who is the authority that says J/R is wrong?

Apparently a little league coach who tries to umpire.

I did not say there is proof it is wrong on the "within a body's length" ruling. I just said it was a bunch of BS and I'd bet you wouldn't get away with such a call.

Where J/R is/was wrong is on the "string theory" and on the bounced foul tip.