Make up your mind. Was it a rule application, or a judgment call?

Don't feed the CDump.

GarthB,Mcrowder
 

My bad, it was a rules interpretation. Same deal though, they should nip it in the bud rather than waiting 3 innings to change it and add a run to the score.

Mcrowder, I would prefer if you didn't insult me.

From a rulebook
 

I find it hard to believe that the run was wiped off the board.
Something must have been said that we have all missed.

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the right explanation.

They screwed up. They admitted it. They had a "brain cramp."

I will play commissioner for a moment.

A manager cannot protest an alleged misapplication of a rule after a subsequent pitch or play. The protest was made after the "correction" of a misapplication of a rule in an earlier inning. This "correction" may be allowed under 9.01c (yes, I know many here don't believe in 9.01c since all things should be covered, but apparently not). The disputed correction may be allowed under 9.01C, the original ruling is ruled incorrect, the affect did not significantly affect the protesting team's opportunity to win the game so protest is denied.

If you're the commish, allow me to be the protesting manager.

There was no ruling on this play to protest. The ruling was the run didn't score before the appeal at first was made. There was no misapplication of the rules, just a very, very poor judgment call on a timing play. If my opposing manager didn't catch this, it's his fault.

Don't let the fifth umpire, with access to instant replay, have any say in this at all. Do that, and you'll have every judgment call being reviewed in the tunnel. Commish, you've got the stopper to put on the bottle before the genie comes out. Put a cork in it Boss.

My protest involves the umpires on the field inappropriately going to video tape to review a judgment call. This ain't hockey, and no one threw a red flag. This is baseball, and we have long and storied history of umpires making, and living with bad calls.

Thank you for your time.

If Commish Rules that Way....
 

He's nuts!

It is almost a sure thing that politics will lead to the protest being disallowed (MLB will sweep the mistake under the rug), but this protest needs to be upheld.

Sorry men, this is not a judgement call, it is clearly a misapplication of a rule, and while 9.01 covers everything in the rules, you cannot go back and retroactively change calls from previous innings.

Whatever the final score of the game is, it is irrelevant, unless Cleveland, the offended team, had won the game. It violates a simple rule of fair play to add a run several innings later in the game, mistake or not by PU. It not only changes how the game is played, it makes the whole idea of fair play questionable if you allow this to happen.

In the NFL, NBA, and NHL, it seems like almost every week there is a letter to some team from the league office about how the officials missed applied a rule. I never see the officials decide to correct an error five plays or a quarter later. It's always a case of "Our bad, sorry, see you later."

I feel awful bad for the umpire crew here, they would never want to make a mistake like this, and they have enough garbage from people to deal with. But you cannot have 2 bites of the apple in this play, especially when the next bite is 3 innigns later.

Not basketball
 

John, won't work in basketball, they allow for it in the rules.

Actually happens all the time - one team complains about the score. Officials get together and fix it etc., Of course they have to have evidence that the score should be changed etc.,

Especially at HS level.

thanks
David

Is a "call" being changed? A run that legally scored by rule wasn't properly reflected on the scoreboard and was added later.

Ah, the crux of the whole discussion. The PU ruled that the run didn't cross the plate before the appeal was made. Thus, the wave off. The PU looked to the scoring booth, pointed to the plate, and waved it off. We all know now, because we saw the replay, that that wasn't the case. But that was the judgement call on the field at the time.

But was it a judgment call or was it his ruling that R3 didn't score. There IS a difference.

We'll never actually know, because the offensive manager never came out and questioned it. The rest was just the umpiring crew trying to cover it up.

I'd say that the only time you wave off runs is on a timing play. Do you do it on force outs? No. Any other times? No. Just timing plays. So the PU knew it was a timing play, and JUDGED that the runner didn't cross in time.

So you have a ruling: Timing play, and a judgement call: No he didn't hit the plate in time. We all know he blew it, but it's gotta stand.

Question: Is there any other time that you, as an umpire, wave off runs?

Another angle: R1, R3, two outs. A ball is hit back to the pitcher, who throws in to the catcher. The catcher tags the plate, and PU calls out on the force. The sides are changed, but two innings later someone figures out it wasn't a force at the plate. Now what? Same deal here folks.

I don't think it really matters. Either the PU really kicked the timing play or he misapplied a rule. If he kicked the timing play, bummer, yell all you want about his judgement (not protestable). If he misapplied a rule, great, the offended team has an opportunity to protest that call....they didn't (in the time frame laid out in the rule book). The protest by the new offended team three innings later should be upheld because no where in the rule book does it say that the umpire crew can come back and fix somehting they blew three innings earlier.

No, there isn't. The only difference between this being judgement or this being a rules misapplication is that if it was a rules misapplication, it could have been protested RIGHT THEN, and if it was judgement, it could not.

But AFTER the protest period was over (1 pitch), it was too late to fix this.

3 Innings Later !?!?!?! Whether it was judgement or rule misapplication, it's too late to retroactively change the call and award a run. I don't care if the final score was 1 run or 10 runs - the situation AT THE TIME was close enough that decisions could have been made based on the score at that time. Protest upheld. Play it again, Sam.