Protest Limits

[Carl Cramer]

Fed Rules: Bases loaded, no outs, batted ball skips under F6's glove and strikes R2 who tried to avoid it. Ump calls Interference and allows R3 to score. (I'm not making this up.) Defensive Coach files a protest, presumably about that run scoring.

Ump stated that it WAS interference, despite the runner being directly behind the fielder and no other player had a chance to field the ball, because F6 'never gloved the ball'. Hmmm.

Ump stated that R3 can score "because F6 made an error on the play" Wow.

Defensive Coach files protest - who can blame him? Offensive Coach does not - he'll take the run!

When this mess is heard by a protest committee, does the interference call become subject of the protest, too? Or can the protest be specific to only the run scoring.

thanks!

And by the way, these 2 Umps stood around after the game eating hot dogs at the refreshment stand.

[David B]

Originally Posted by Carl Cramer

Fed Rules: Bases loaded, no outs, batted ball skips under F6's glove and strikes R2 who tried to avoid it. Ump calls Interference and allows R3 to score. (I'm not making this up.) Defensive Coach files a protest, presumably about that run scoring.

Ump stated that it WAS interference, despite the runner being directly behind the fielder and no other player had a chance to field the ball, because F6 'never gloved the ball'. Hmmm.

Ump stated that R3 can score "because F6 made an error on the play" Wow.

Defensive Coach files protest - who can blame him? Offensive Coach does not - he'll take the run!

When this mess is heard by a protest committee, does the interference call become subject of the protest, too? Or can the protest be specific to only the run scoring.

thanks!

And by the way, these 2 Umps stood around after the game eating hot dogs at the refreshment stand.

Horrible umpiring! Gives all umpires a bad name. The bad thing is that in our state "no protests" are allowed so the poor defensive team is simply screwed.

I just would be interested to see which rules the umpire says applies to this play ....

Lets see interference = dead ball

Dead ball kills the play, yet we have a run scoring?

Long live "smitty"

Thansk
DAvid

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by David B

Horrible umpiring! Gives all umpires a bad name. The bad thing is that in our state "no protests" are allowed so the poor defensive team is simply screwed.

I just would be interested to see which rules the umpire says applies to this play ....

Lets see interference = dead ball

Dead ball kills the play, yet we have a run scoring?

Long live "smitty"

Thanks
David

It was for sure horrible umpiring, but not for the reason you are stating.

The poor defense didn't get screwed at all.

The poor offense is the one that got screwed here.

There should have been no interference called at all, the ball should have remained live, and R3 should have scored with ease, and perhaps R2 as well if the ball bounded far enough away from F6 to allow it.

Why on earth would the umpire call interference after the ball passed through F6's legs and hit the runner, if no other fielder had a play on the ball? Hmmmm? The defense caught a break in that they got an out, and only one run scored because of the buffoonery of the umpires.

And Carl, what is wrong with the umpires having a dog or burger furnished them after working a ball game? You don't think the MLB guys are furnished a spread after the game? You said this as if there was some shame in this, or that the umpires should have just crawled away with their tails between their legs and skedaddled out of there. Let the umpires get every perk they can while at the ol' ballyard.

[David B]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It was for sure horrible umpiring, but not for the reason you are stating.

The poor defense didn't get screwed at all.

The poor offense is the one that got screwed here.

There should have been no interference called at all, the ball should have remained live, and R3 should have scored with ease, and perhaps R2 as well if the ball bounded far enough away from F6 to allow it.

Why on earth would the umpire call interference after the ball passed through F6's legs and hit the runner, if no other fielder had a play on the ball? Hmmmm? The defense caught a break in that they got an out, and only one run scored because of the buffoonery of the umpires.

And Carl, what is wrong with the umpires having a dog or burger furnished them after working a ball game? You don't think the MLB guys are furnished a spread after the game? You said this as if there was some shame in this, or that the umpires should have just crawled away with their tails between their legs and skedaddled out of there. Let the umpires get every perk they can while at the ol' ballyard.

You;re right about the offense being the one who gets the shaft, but once the umpire calls interference its interference.

So as far as protest, the only thing the defense can protest is the run scored? Just wondering if that is correct.

Thank goodness we don't have to worry about protests etc.,

Thanks
David

[bob jenkins]

My opinion:

Since the *rule* relating to interference wasn't protested, it becomes (or remains) a judgment call, and the call stands.

So, the *rule* on the run scoring after an interference call can be protested.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My opinion:

Since the *rule* relating to interference wasn't protested, it becomes (or remains) a judgment call, and the call stands.

So, the *rule* on the run scoring after an interference call can be protested.

I agree with Bob. The committee should only consider what was specifically protested. The offensive manager should have filed a (counter-)protest on the interference to cover himself.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My opinion:

Since the *rule* relating to interference wasn't protested, it becomes (or remains) a judgment call, and the call stands.

So, the *rule* on the run scoring after an interference call can be protested.

Bob,
Given the umpires explanation, would you not agree that he misapplied the rule about the ball getting by the fielder, regardless if he actually touched the ball at all and that the interference call is protestable? The umpire didn't state there was another fielder who could have made a play. His argument was that because the fielder never touched the ball the first time, he still had a chance. Only the first chance by a fielder matters. Once it gets by, only a second fielder with a chance factors into the situation.
FED 8-4-2k

k. is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play (5-1-1f, 6-1-5).

The text in red doesn't apply. Text in blue applies, but the text in lime doesn't. So, the umpire has misapplied the rules, has he not? I would protest the interference also, because of the misapplication of 8-4-2k.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Bob,
Given the umpires explanation, would you not agree that he misapplied the rule about the ball getting by the fielder, regardless if he actually touched the ball at all and that the interference call is protestable? The umpire didn't state there was another fielder who could have made a play. His argument was that because the fielder never touched the ball the first time, he still had a chance. Only the first chance by a fielder matters. Once it gets by, only a second fielder with a chance factors into the situation.
FED 8-4-2k

k. is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play (5-1-1f, 6-1-5).

The text in red doesn't apply. Text in blue applies, but the text in lime doesn't. So, the umpire has misapplied the rules, has he not? I would protest the interference also, because of the misapplication of 8-4-2k.

Sure it could have been protested, and it would have had a good chance, but since it wasn't the committee should not review it.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Sure it could have been protested, and it would have had a good chance, but since it wasn't the committee should not review it.

I was having an over 50 moment when I posted and had forgotten about the OC not protesting, even though he should have. I must admit, this is the first instance I've seen where both teams could have protested the call on the field because the umpire misapplied the rules. You would think in the case as is the DC would win his protest. However, if the OC also protested, the run would score, the runner called out would be on third or have scored, and the batter would be most likely on 1B.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Lime text is very illegible, and really a strain on the eyes.

[Carl Cramer]

Official ruling from Umpire interpreter:

1. Umpires wrongly called R2 out for Interference
2. Once ball went by F6 and stuck R2, with no other fielder able to make a play, the touching of the ball by R2 should have been ignored, allowing R3 to score - as was allowed at the time of the play.
3. So, if called correctly, R3 run scores - as it did at the tme of the play - so protest is dropped.


Looks like the Ump Interpreter lumped the entire sequence of plays together.

Interesting!