IMO, the answers given are what's "theoretically " correct but IMO we need to discuss reality.

You might be working with a "stubborn partner' who is a "top dog".

Personally I am not going to "get into it" with my partner on the field. We get together discuss the situation and I tell him/her what the ruling is (assuming I am "dead on" sure).

It is now up to him/her to either change the ruling or "live with it"


Some answers given said that protests could be detrimental to one's career. This could be a 'catch 22" because fighting with your partner on the field is no good either. It boils down to the "lessor of 2 evils"

In Summary: If you are the crew chief and have final say and are sure of the ruling then make the correct ruling. However, if you are NOT the crew chief and your partner is stubborn IMO, do not have a heated discussion on the field but allow the call to stand and await the managers protest

Pete Booth

I agree. But I have never asked a coach to bring one out and have never gone to my car to get one. I have had cases where the coach did not believe me, but never had one that felt so strongly to protest.

With that being said I can recall come cases where I blew a rule and sometimes realize it several pitches too late. But I don't remember too many cases where the coach did not agree with me, that I was wrong. And I always double check that when I get home.

Rule Book on the Field
 

I have had only one case in my 35 year umpiring career where a coach asked me to check the rule book.

Me: Coach, I don't need to check the rule book. I know the rules! I don't bring a rule book on the field with me.

He: I've got one in the dugout. Will you check it?

Me: I'm sure I got the rule right, but if you need the rule book, bring it out.

He: (After going back to the dugout) Here is the book. Show me the rule.

Me: (Opening the book to the exact page on the first try): Here is the rule. (I read it to him - in case he can't read). Now let's play ball.

To be absolutely fair to him, the ruling did depend on how the actual rule was interpreted. Fed Rule 7-3-5 - "A batter shall not . . . interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by . . . a) leaning over home plate.

He was coaching his players to lean over so that their entire upper body was over the plate, well into the strike zone.

He later got an intrepretation from the state rules interpreter that so long as the batter's feet were in the batter's box, the tactic was legal.

I took myself off any of that team's games, but as fate would have it I wound up calling a tournament in which that team reached the finals. I was aware of his favorable ruling, so we started the game with his players leaning over the plate. The opposing pitcher was a fireballer, who hit several batters (some of which were on called strikes). After having enough of this, I called the coach out for a conference. I told him that I was aware of his favorable ruling, but we had a safety situation and I was taking advantage of the fact that protests are not allowed in Texas. MY ruling was that he would not have his players lean out over the plate for the rest of the game. His choices were to go back to the dugout and continue with my interpretation of the rule, get ejected, or forfeit the game. He chose the first option. The opposing pitcher threw a no-hitter, and his (small) school won the tournament over the opposing (large) school.

Impressive!

I, personally, wouldn't have handled it that way - mostly because I would risk embarrassing myself by fumbling through the rulebook trying to find a rule that I know is there but simply can't put my finger on it at the moment. I think we've all been there.

"Where in the hell is that rule!?"

I remember trying to find the rule that stated that a batter was automatically out if they crossed over into the other batter's box while the pitcher was ready to pitch. I knew it was there and, in my haste, for the life of me, I couldn't find it.

Although I'm not one of those guys that would never allow a rulebook on the field, I certainly wouldn't allow a coach to make me do the research.

If the coach is complaining about a ruling and is so confident that he's right to the extent that he is willing to show me in a rulebook - I would make him do the research and the game would continue in the meantime, unless, of course, he wants to protest at that moment; in which case I will ...

1.) Consult with my partner. If he disagrees with my call, together we will look through the rulebook and resolve it.

2.) Even if my partner agrees with my call, if I'm not 100% sure, I will probably still get out the rulebook - just to make sure.

3.) If my partner agrees with my call, and I'm confident in my ruling, without reference to the rulebook, I will handle the administrative tasks associated with a protested game and move on.

Depending on the environment surrounding the game (friendly or hostile), I may handle things a bit differently. If there is a question about a call and the game is one of those "friendly" ones where nothing is at stake and nobody is getting too wound tight ... where it is more a matter of curiosity than confrontation ... I may get out the rulebook as a matter of instruction to the coach.

But in a hostile environment, I'm not so sure I'd put myself on center stage, flipping through the rulebook, while the coach defiantly stands by with his hands on his hips. "Show me!"

I'd make him protest the game and make his wallet a little thinner for the challenge. I don't know about your areas, but around here, all protests have a fee associated with them. If you lose the protest, you lose the money. If the protest is upheld, your money is refunded.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

That is just awful. You can't blame the coach though. Has that interpretation been changed? Hopefully, the interpreter has.

Those are excellent points!

I think your way of looking at it is both correct and most practical. If one umpire is unquestionably more experienced and knowledgeable than the other, whether he's the PU or BU, he should have the final say in disputed matters.

The way I look at it, the PU is always "in charge" of administrative matters; i.e. substitutions, pitching changes, batting line-up, time outs, etc. But he may or may not necessarily be "in charge" of the game.

I like your way of designating the Crew Chief when assigning games. Very smart! That way the Big Dog can let the newbie work the plate (since he probably needs the experience) while not relinquishing control of the game.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

This incident was several years ago. The coach, interpretation and interpreter have all changed.

No protest in Texas
 

As I mentioned in the post, in Texas, protests are not allowed in high school baseball.

Also, I had some prior notice that this team was using the tactic and had looked up the rule before I went on the field. That I was able to open the book to the exact page was pure chance.