Unusual occurence in April 28th Baltimore-Cleveland game

[BoomerSooner]

My question is that although they ultimately they got the call right, does the fact that they did it 3 innings after they should have make it protestable. I would think that Baltimore would have protested immediately after the original misinterp. It looked like Cleveland only protested after the call was reversed. I don't know of any ruling that would suggest that you can't go back and correct the score, but I'm certainly not an MLB ump.

[UMP25]

kylejt is correct--how do you NOT know one of the most common examples of a time play? Inexcusable.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

MLB may not allow the protest. Then we'll never know. The crew will go home happy.
Anyone have an idea what "rule" fell under protest?

They would have used 4.19 to show a misapplication of rule 4.09


4.19 PROTESTING GAMES

Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire's decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final. Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team's chances of winning the game.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch is made or a runner is retired. A protest arising on a game-ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the League Office.

4.09 HOW A TEAM SCORES

(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning.

EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.
Cross References: 1.02, 1.03, 2.00 Run, 4.09(b, A.R.), 5.06, 6.09(h), 7.04(b), 7.05(a), 7.08(j)


Tim.

[Dave Hensley]

In my opinion, it is plate umpire Marvin Hudson's bad all the way. He waved off the run that clearly scored before the 3rd out was made on appeal. He clearly was operating under the common but oh-so-wrong misunderstanding that doubling off a runner who leaves early on a fly is a force out.

I think Montague et. al. were kind of thrown under the bus by Hudson's ignorance, and didn't realize what had happened until it was too late, but then guilt gnawed on them for 3 innings until Montague made the executive decision to correct the error.

I think the protest should be upheld. The rules afforded the offense ample opportunity to appeal for a correct decision, and they did not. Montague's heart may have been in the right place, vis-a-vis the currently popular "get it right" mantra, but his 3-inning late mea culpa is without precedent and without support in the rules or published interpretations.

[Toadman15241]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

In my opinion, it is plate umpire Marvin Hudson's bad all the way. He waved off the run that clearly scored before the 3rd out was made on appeal. He clearly was operating under the common but oh-so-wrong misunderstanding that doubling off a runner who leaves early on a fly is a force out.

I think Montague et. al. were kind of thrown under the bus by Hudson's ignorance, and didn't realize what had happened until it was too late, but then guilt gnawed on them for 3 innings until Montague made the executive decision to correct the error.

I think the protest should be upheld. The rules afforded the offense ample opportunity to appeal for a correct decision, and they did not. Montague's heart may have been in the right place, vis-a-vis the currently popular "get it right" mantra, but his 3-inning late mea culpa is without precedent and without support in the rules or published interpretations.

I agree that the protest needs to be upheld. The offense DID appeal the situation immediately after the play occurred, and all 4 umps got together and they ALL didn't know the rule. All 4 deserve to be thrown under the bus. The offense (Baltimore) should have protested the game right there. They did not and that is there fault. You can't go change this after the next pitch, much less 3 innings later. This crew should be given a week off to re-read the rule book.

[SAump]

Where in the rulebook does it state that an umpire can wipe off an earned run by mistake?

The defense saw the umpires were still wondering about the play in question too. Both sides put in their arguments and the umpires corrected the mistake, albeit 3 innings too late. I believe there is a precedent to changing the official score to reflect player statitistics such as RBI awards. The defense should have been well aware of the mistake the umpires had made. I guess instant replay was shown and everyone knew the umpires had made a mistake. The right thing to do would be to withdraw the protest, if possible, or throw it out, if not.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by SAump

Where in the rulebook does it state that an umpire can wipe off an earned run by mistake?

Everyone is overthinking this. It's a judgment call, on a timing play. No one, NO ONE called it a misapplication of the rules after it happened. No run scores on this folks, as called by the umpire at the plate. If anyone had a problem with it they a had lot of time before the next pitch happened. Hey, maybe the PU didn't see the batter hit the plate in time. It really doesn't matter though. He made a very distinct wave off, just listen to the announcer. No question what he was calling. If the O's didn't like it, they should have spoken up at the time.

Too late now, or three innings later, IMO.

[Toadman15241]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Everyone is overthinking this. It's a judgment call, on a timing play. No one, NO ONE called it a misapplication of the rules after it happened.

Too late now, or three innings later, IMO.

I disagree. There is NO way that this is a judgment call. Everyone in the park knew that the runner touched home before the appeal at 1st. If it was pure judgment, the O's bench coach would not have come out to argue, and they wouldn't have sent someone to check the rule book. This crew managed to screw up two basic rules in one game. Sad.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

In my opinion, it is plate umpire Marvin Hudson's bad all the way. He waved off the run that clearly scored before the 3rd out was made on appeal. He clearly was operating under the common but oh-so-wrong misunderstanding that doubling off a runner who leaves early on a fly is a force out.

I think Montague et. al. were kind of thrown under the bus by Hudson's ignorance, and didn't realize what had happened until it was too late, but then guilt gnawed on them for 3 innings until Montague made the executive decision to correct the error.

I think the protest should be upheld. The rules afforded the offense ample opportunity to appeal for a correct decision, and they did not. Montague's heart may have been in the right place, vis-a-vis the currently popular "get it right" mantra, but his 3-inning late mea culpa is without precedent and without support in the rules or published interpretations.

I was having dinner with 7 NCAA umpires when this umpires when this play happened and they were working two man during the game. 5 of the 8 of us had por experience and 2 of the 5 had MLB fill-in time, one guy with over 900 games. We were talking before they added the run in the 6th and When I suggested that they might in the 5th and it happened in the 6th we all got an ohhh my god look in our faces, but then we talked about why they did it. They did it because their ultimate goal is to get it right.

Guys are always *****ing about a guy kicking a call or a crew making a mistake. THIS IS WHEN THE BEST UMPIRING IS DONE AND THE REAL CREAM RISES TO THE TOP. Yes, they should have never missed the call, but they did and then they got it right. The idea as it was explained to me when I was in pro ball and being evaluated was not to be perfect, but get in a **** house and come out on the other side clean. You never wanted to have a nothing game when you were being looked at. This play was handled very well and the crew is to be comended for not caring what it looked like or what they looked like, but putting their personal interests aside and getting the freaking call right.

As for the protest, I honestly think that it will not be allowed. The protest was made by Cleveland when they added the run, but they umpires simply did they right thing once they realized what that was. So the timing of the protest by Cleveland was correct, but in the "judgement" of the umpires, they did what they felt was correct. You can't protest a judgement call and it was Ed's judgement to have the run awarded. It doesn't matter when, when he did it was still the right call.

To answer the lack of support in the rules, their is no support either way, so as per 9.01c they had the right to do what they did.

Fell free to tell me that I am wrong, because all 7 of my friends did.

[David B]

Originally Posted by Durham

I was having dinner with 7 NCAA umpires when this umpires when this play happened and they were working two man during the game. 5 of the 8 of us had por experience and 2 of the 5 had MLB fill-in time, one guy with over 900 games. We were talking before they added the run in the 6th and When I suggested that they might in the 5th and it happened in the 6th we all got an ohhh my god look in our faces, but then we talked about why they did it. They did it because their ultimate goal is to get it right.

Guys are always *****ing about a guy kicking a call or a crew making a mistake. THIS IS WHEN THE BEST UMPIRING IS DONE AND THE REAL CREAM RISES TO THE TOP. Yes, they should have never missed the call, but they did and then they got it right. The idea as it was explained to me when I was in pro ball and being evaluated was not to be perfect, but get in a **** house and come out on the other side clean. You never wanted to have a nothing game when you were being looked at. This play was handled very well and the crew is to be comended for not caring what it looked like or what they looked like, but putting their personal interests aside and getting the freaking call right.

As for the protest, I honestly think that it will not be allowed. The protest was made by Cleveland when they added the run, but they umpires simply did they right thing once they realized what that was. So the timing of the protest by Cleveland was correct, but in the "judgement" of the umpires, they did what they felt was correct. You can't protest a judgement call and it was Ed's judgement to have the run awarded. It doesn't matter when, when he did it was still the right call.

To answer the lack of support in the rules, their is no support either way, so as per 9.01c they had the right to do what they did.

Fell free to tell me that I am wrong, because all 7 of my friends did.

Might be without precedent, but as you stated it sounds like they did a "right" thing.

I think they will disallow the protest also because the rules are not very clear either way.

As we know in baseball, there is a first time for everything.

Thanks
DAvid

[jimpiano]

The protest will be disallowed since the umpires got it right.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The protest will be disallowed since the umpires got it right.

It's not about what the call should have been, but rather how it got there. Was proper procedure followed? No way. This is a process failure, and the protest is all about the process.

Umpire mistakes are part of the very fabric of the game. Sometimes we goof, boys. And when we do, the managers have certain responsibilities. And when they fail it's TFB for everyone.

MLB is going to sugar coat this, I have no doubt. The "get the call right" brush will sweep it all under the rug. But the implications, just like the reversed foul call last year, will build up until the robots from Spacely Sprockets are calling the games. I just hope +POS won't be the official supplier for spare parts.

[BJ]

Originally Posted by David B

Might be without precedent, but as you stated it sounds like they did a "right" thing.

I think they will disallow the protest also because the rules are not very clear either way.

As we know in baseball, there is a first time for everything.

Thanks
DAvid

There is a precedent. About 4 or 5 years ago in AAA, the same thing happened. Plate umpire had a brain fart, but the crew didn't get together. An inning later, the first base umpire came down to talk with the plate umpire to ask about the play because he thought it was rather odd that R3 didn't beat the throw. The plate umpire said that he did (by about 2 steps), but it was a force out at 1st for the 3rd out so the run doesn't count. The 3 umpires got together and said that they kicked that call, and the run should have counted. Then, they put the run on the board. Of course, the defensive team for the play in question immediately protested the game.

End result - the protest was denied.

BJ

[jkumpire]

As I was coming home from my game tonight, I happend to turn on the Indians game. The broadcast crew reported that the protest was disallowed. No reason was given.

Mike Heagen, Color guy: "I don't know what sense it makes to even protest games any more, because if there was ever a case for a protest to be upheld, this was was it."

Tom Hamilton, Play-by-play: "Of course the Indians think this is a terrible decision, but will not say anything in public because they will only get in more trouble..."

It seems very obvious that the suits in NY wanted to shovel this thing under the rug, and the political way was to disallow the protest. Saves the umps from any bad pub, and since Batlimore won the game, who cares anyway right? Only us guys who care about the game being played right

By the way, rules mavens, the MLB office used 9.01c to justify the ruling, here the press release from the Indians site:

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/new...=.jsp&c_id=cle

CLEVELAND -- Indians general manager Mark Shapiro understands the Commissioner's Office had a tough decision to make regarding Saturday's protested game against the Orioles.

Ultimately, however, Shapiro and the rest of the Indians feel the league made the wrong decision.

"I still feel," Shapiro said, "we have a strong, solid, well-presented case."

It's a case Major League Baseball rejected Wednesday afternoon. MLB president and chief operating officer Bob DuPuy denied the Tribe's protest from that game, and the Orioles' bizarre, 7-4 victory over the Indians was upheld.

The Indians had protested the umpiring crew's ability to add a run to the scoreboard three innings after it crossed the plate. But a little-known clause in the rule book apparently gives the umpire's that power.

In a memo from the league office explaining DuPuy's decision, Rule 9.01(c) is cited.

"The Official Baseball Rules do not address when the umpires can make such a correction in those circumstances," the memo read. "When the rules do not address a situation, Official Baseball Rule 9.01(c) gives them the discretion to rule on any point not otherwise covered by the Rules."

Shapiro jokingly referred to the rule as an "escape hatch."

Here's how the umpires found themselves using that hatch Saturday night:

In the bottom of the sixth inning, with the score tied at 2, crew chief Ed Montague instructed the official scorer to add a run to the Orioles' tally, making it 3-2.

The run had come in the top of the third inning. The Orioles were up, 2-1, with one out and runners on the corners. Ramon Hernandez hit a line drive to center field that was caught by Grady Sizemore, who then threw to first base, doubling up Miguel Tejada. But while Sizemore lobbed the ball to first, Nick Markakis tagged up at third and scored before Tejada was ruled out. Thus, Markakis' run should have counted, but it was waved off by home-plate umpire Marvin Hudson.

Baltimore didn't argue the call until after the third, when bench coach Tom Trebelhorn talked it over with Montague. The rule book was summoned, and the umpires had several conversations with both dugouts before Montague finally ruled the run should be tacked on in the sixth.

Indians manager Eric Wedge immediately told Montague the Indians would play the remainder of the game in protest. The Indians took a 4-3 lead on Jhonny Peralta's two-run homer in the sixth, but they eventually lost the game, 7-4.

Once an official protest was filed Sunday, the Indians were hoping MLB would accept it and have the game replayed this weekend in Baltimore -- either from the third inning, with the run intact, or the sixth inning, with the run nullified.

Instead, the game stands as a Cleveland loss.

Wedge opted not to offer much comment on the league's ruling, saying only, "Obviously, I disagree with their decision."

Shapiro, meanwhile, said he's concerned about the precedent the decision might create.

"It was going to be problematic, either way they ruled," he said.

As part of the protest, the Indians' front office sent video evidence and documentation to the league office. Shapiro also placed a call to Joe Garagiola Jr., MLB's senior vice president of baseball operations, on Wednesday morning to ensure the league didn't need anything else from the club.

"There's no way to appeal this any further," Shapiro said. "It's time to put it to bed."

That being said, with this strange scenario in the back of his mind, Shapiro said he hopes the little-known rule is a topic of discussion at November's GM Meetings.

"We'll put it on the agenda this year," he said.

Wow, I hope it is on the agenda. What a bunch of garbage. The thinking is:

1. PU srews it up.
2. 3 innings later, crew realizes he/they screwed it up
3. Crew decides to change a fundamental of rules and umpiring to correct the mistake.
4. League office refuses to take a stand, so they bail on the decision, since:
5. Umpires under 9.01c can do anything they want to cover their rear ends since noone has screwed up this play before and there is no rulebook coverage for dealing with such a screwup.

This is an embarassment. I've umpired a lot of baseball games over the years, and I have some calls I wish I could take back, but I had the guts to own my own controversial calls, even if get them wrong. But now I find I can go hit the big 'ole Reset Button anytime I want in pro rules and make things "right". what, we get to go to a Star Trek Holodeck and replay everything to get our claas right now?

Dollars to donuts sometime this season someone on this board will post a sit about a crew who was convinced in a game to add runs later, or go back to a play where rule was missapplied, or someone had second thoughts about the call. And then there wil be the mechanics of doing it post, then the "how to score it" post.

I guarantee you I will get asked in sumer ball to overrule or change a call based on this play.

As you can tell, I am upset about this.

[PeteBooth]

This play was handled very well and the crew is to be comended for not caring what it looked like or what they looked like, but putting their personal interests aside and getting the freaking call right.

We all have our opinions but IMO, this play was not handled very well at all especially when you have 4 very well trained umpires at the highest level. As I said in my first post, if this were an amateur game, this crew would be getting "killed" by everyone.

You can't protest a judgement call and it was Ed's judgement to have the run awarded. It doesn't matter when, when he did it was still the right call.

IMO, the timing does matter.

Let me use an extreme example to get my point across.

In NFL football, pass interference is a judgement call and it is a spot foul. let's say we had a controversial play in the end zone a blatant Pass interference which was not called. The offense proceeds to run 2 more plays and then punts the ball. All of a sudden the officials huddle and now want to 'go back" and enforce the pass interference call.

One might say wait a minute Pete you are comparing apples / oranges. IMO I am not. In baseball a run is a HUGE factor in the game. IMO, you cannot go back and Retroactively put runs on the Board. The game is dictated by how many runs one is leading by. It effects the pitching match-ups etc.

The O's had plenty of time to question the play or appeal it. They didn't so IMO, you cannot go back and put runs on the Board.

My opinion doesn't count so we will have to wait and see what major league baseball does. Whatever the decision, it's my gut money will come into it, meaning if the protest is upheld, do the people who attended that game have free seats to see the game picked up from the protest or will they have 2 admissions sort of a day / night type double dip.

If the protest is NOT upheld then IMO the floodgates could be open.

IMO, this theory about getting the call right is overhyped becasue the fact is We will not get every call right. Timing is a factor that's why the rule-makers put "time limits" if you will into the appeal rules. We live in an imperfect world.

Bottom Line IMO, a Very Poor job by this umpiring crew.

Pete Booth