Little league question

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

It may be effective in cutting down on frivolous protests, but it is not within the umpires' domain to make that call. You cannot be the judge when the rule is set up for you to be the defendant, regardless of your innocence.

Whether or not the issue being protested is a judgment or a rule interpretation is, itself, sometimes open to debate, and therefore the consistent instruction, from Little League all the way through professional baseball, is to accept the protest and follow the protest rules, even if you, the umpire, think it is a frivolous or "illegal" protest.

I don't totally agree with that - it has to be a protestable situation. If it's a judgement call, it is NOT a protestable situation - period. Illegal pitcher, not meeting MPR are protestable situations . . .

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

I don't totally agree with that - it has to be a protestable situation. If it's a judgement call, it is NOT a protestable situation - period. Illegal pitcher, not meeting MPR are protestable situations . . .

Balk.

That wasn't a balk.

Yes it was.

I protest.

You can't protest, it's a judgment call.

I think you called it because you don't understand the balk rule.

I called it because the pitcher went to his mouth on the mound. That's a balk.

See, I told you - no it isn't. The rule says the penalty for that infraction is a ball.

No it doesn't - and don't you even think of whipping that rulebook out on me, boy.

OK, but I protest.

You can't protest, it's a judgment call.

[Dave Hensley]

As a follow up in support of my claim that accepting a protest even if it's over a judgment decision is what we should do, following is Evans on the subject:

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.

Little League officials encourage the same practice - in order to expedite the resolution of the protest, don't try to shut it down even if you're sure it's frivolous. Just pass it on, and it will (hopefully) be rejected as it should be, by following due process.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

As a follow up in support of my claim that accepting a protest even if it's over a judgment decision is what we should do, following is Evans on the subject:

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.

Little League officials encourage the same practice - in order to expedite the resolution of the protest, don't try to shut it down even if you're sure it's frivolous. Just pass it on, and it will (hopefully) be rejected as it should be, by following due process.

I agree with this 100%. But, at what point of the protest 'chain' does the improperly lodged protest end?
I mean, in LL tournament play, the protest must be decided on before the game continues, right? So, what if the manager doesn't agree with the decision of the TD? Then he disagrees with the dirtrict, then state, then regional, and now he's reached LL Int'l. This seems like an awefully lot of wasted time on a non-protestable call.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

As a follow up in support of my claim that accepting a protest even if it's over a judgment decision is what we should do, following is Evans on the subject:

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.

Little League officials encourage the same practice - in order to expedite the resolution of the protest, don't try to shut it down even if you're sure it's frivolous. Just pass it on, and it will (hopefully) be rejected as it should be, by following due process.

I hope this doesn't sound retarded. As I formulate this in my mind, it doesn't. Does that mean that a coach can protest a game because an umpire is calling strikes out of the strike zone? He's not arguing balls & strikes, he's "protesting". The umpire is misinterpreting the rule of what the zone is supposed to be. I know it's far-fetched, but are you going to allow that protest?

[Dave Hensley]

Yes, it is a waste of time, and yes, even the protest that the umpire is misinterpreting the strikezone SHOULD be run up the protest flagpole, after using best efforts to persuade the coach that he's erroneously protesting a judgment call.

During regular season, I personally endorse the use of a protest fee to discourage the filing of frivolous protests. I don't even mind serving on the protest committee, if the coach is going to pay for the pizza and beer.

During tournament, the expectation is that the coaches will be more competent and informed than your average coach, and would not be so obstinate as to keep protesting all the way to Williamsport when the umpire, the tournament director, and the regional committee have all told him he's a doofus.

But, the rule is the rule. If the coach disagrees with you that he is protesting something that is not protestable, you as the umpire cannot refuse to accept the protest. You must do as the rule says and follow the due process.