A cover up usually is when the umpires ignore something. I wouldn't call this a cover up, they let everyone in the world know what they were doing.

I'd do it anytime there might be confusion. For example, we had a play the other weekend where R1 was hit by the batted ball. The ball continued into the outfield, R2 crossed the plate and only then did everyone realize that BU had a call. I wiped the run and made sure both benches knew.

In the play at hand, it was an "unusual" third out and so, I think giving an indication was proper (even if the ruling was wrong).

Slightly related question from a non-umpire/ <i>beisbol</i> fanboy......

In yesterday's St. Louis game, Albert Pujols walked on 3 balls. Nobody caught it. At what point does a mistake like that become set in stone- i.e. not fixable?

It should become unfixable as soon as the next pitch is thrown.

Unless it's noticed 3 innings later.

I wasn't going to post this, but now I am. It really doesn't affect anyone's analysis of the Cleveland/Baltimore game, but it is an example of how some NCAA Division 1 umpires handled this exact situation.

I was umpiring at an early season non-conference Division 1 tournament. (In a city that has 3 Division 1 teams...who were all jointly co-hosting the tournament with a bunch of northern teams).

Anyways, at my ballpark I was sitting in the press box watching a game with my crew (we had the next game). (We were in the press box (1) because our locker room was in the lower level of the press box tower, and (2) except for the SID staff running the scoreboard and PA, it was empty and we'd rather watch a game than sit in the locker room).

While watching the game, the exact same play as the Baltimore/Cleveland play happened. The home plate umpire waived off a run that crossed well before the out at first was recorded. In fact, he scored so far in advance of the out at first, that the offensive team didn't even see him waive off the run because they had moved on to watching the play at first.

Anyways, nobody says a thing at that time. The SID staff (in the press box) doesn't put the run on the scoreboard. The SID actually says, "I think that's wrong" and looks to us. We immediately act like we're in a deep discussion of what's better: Star Wars or Star Trek?

Next half inning is played without anything being said. Before the next half inning (when the offensive team described above is about to bat again) the offensive coach comes out to tell the umpires that "the scoreboard is wrong,"...not that the umpire screwed up in waiving off the run (He had no clue the umpire had done so), but that the scoreboard was "missing a run last inning." The coach said that they scored two runs in the sixth, and not one as shown on the scoreboard.

The umpires get together. The crew chief (long-time college guy) tells his crew (as told to me in the locker room after the game), "I have one run scoring early in the inning, and one on the double-play so it should be two." The other base umpire agrees. The plate umpire says, "no the run on the double play does not score." The crew chief said, "what, you waived the run off?"

At this point, the crew chief thinks the plate umpire just made a bad JUDGMENT call. The plate umpire responded, "yeah, a run can't score on a play in which the third out is made at first base." The crew chief and other umpire quickly correct him.

They then called out the coaches and said the scoreboard was wrong and that they were putting the run on the board. The other team's coach mildly protested (the game was a blow-out, and he was winning big). The crew chief in defending his decition to put the run on the board stated, "the run had scored legally. Once a run scores, a runner can't do anything to take away that run. He scored legally, we can't take it away, so we're putting it on the board."

The crew chief said it with enough legalese mumbo-jumbo to convince the defensive coach and the game finished without incident, (and the defensive team still won by A LOT).

After the game, in the locker room, the crew chief lit into his plate guy...as he should have. I, however, being a veteran(not as much as the crew chief) told the crew chief he was wrong for putting the run on the board when he did. We got into a spirited (not nasty, just spirited) debate about whether they could put the run on the board when they did. In the end we decided: that he should never have been in that position and that the plate guy owed everyone a beer after our game.

You'll forgive me, but as a lowly D3/HS umpire I have to ask:

How the hell does this happen? It's a rule that second year Little League umpires know.

Will they ever announce the ruling on the protest?

If that were the case, they would not have sent Miller in to check the rulebook. Nice try, though. You are determined to turn a rules misapplication into a judgment call.

It's a simple FU, they incorrectly ruled the run couldn't score on the appeal play, treating it as a force.

I'm not really that determined, just promoting one side of the debate. I'm really not sure what they were consulting the rulebook over. I'd doubt they were going over the original play, rather, trying to figure out how on earth to sneak that run in without a protest. Didn't work, I guess.

It will be interesting to see how the protest gets turned down though. Has Marv owned up to this FU yet?

Yes, there IS. If you cannot tell the difference, then there is no hope for you.

Let's reveiw what Ed said: "We kicked it around and now I'm having a brain cramp on it," Montague said. "So I sent Bill (umpire Bill Miller) in, I said 'You know what, cause we're debating, you go in. Lets make it 100 percent sure."'

"Miller checked the rule and said the run should have counted."

I don't know how you can read it any other way...rule misapplication...plain and simple.

Don't be like that.

I can tell the difference. I'm saying that 3 innings later, the difference between this being a judgement call and a rules misinterpretation no longer matters. I think I said that pretty clearly too.

Don't ask me: I think I learned this the second week of umpire school.:D

Upon reading the many people who are adamant that MLB should uphold this protest, I wonder if these same people are aware of the three possible outcomes of a protest. Pursuant to MLB's policy, when a protest is filed, it is:

1. Denied
2. Upheld, but game stands as played (i.e., nothing happens)
3. Upheld, game is replayed from point of protest (this is interesting, because in this specific situation, is not the "point of protest" a time later than when the actual infraction occurred? "Point of protest" is the policy mainly because it coincides with the time of the rules infraction if/when the protest is filed before the next pitch or play, yada...yada...yada)

MLB denied the protest today- no reason given.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/b...orts-headlines