Good article on the protest. Looks like this guy got it right from the start.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

1) We only know what the initial (or close to it) memo / press release said. It's certainly possible (and I would say likely) that it has been discussed / clarified over the past three years, even if it hasn't been published to us.

2) When in doubt, keep it live. IT's a lot easier to send the runner back than to try to guess where he would have ended up if the play was killed in error. So, the fact that they didn't declare a home run initially means nothing.

The crew ended up getting the call right. It would be a good idea to rewrite the replay rule/procedure to very clearly allow them to rule the way they did. It is obviously poorly written as the confusing semantics of the way it is now written is what caused the protest.

Furthermore, I don't see why replay can't be slightly expanded to allow review of fan interference in a ground rule double situation to properly place the runners so an obvious run by R1 on a gapper is not negated by having to otherwise stop him at third. In 2009, MLB told a crew that used replay for that was wrong to do so. Not much different mechanically than the West call, so why not incorporate that too?

I thought the tone was a tad arrogant and snotty considering how poorly written the replay procedure is and how it leaves itself open to a rather logical protest that can be reasonably argued. And it would keep guys like West from having to lie to shoehorn their calls within the confines of the written procedure.

Hmmm...was just thinking about this tonight...

Can the guidelines for using instant replay even be considered as "rules"? After all they do not even appear in the rule book.

The rule covering protests refers to "an umpire's decision in violation of these rules". How can "these rules" mean anything other than the rules actually appearing in the book?

If no actual playing rule was violated...can an actual protest even be filed?

And, I think, ultimately wrong about the rule as written (though obviously right as enforced).

The rule says it's limited to home runs and whether there was fan interference with a home run. At the point West determined there was no fan interference with a home run, his authority to use IR ends under the rule.

Baseball needs to decide if it wants to have its cake or eat it. Doing both simply isn't working out.

There are many rules that are not written in the rules book. Heck, for years the MLBUM (or similar) existed, and no one in the freat internet had access to it. There are similar directions / memos etc. in force today (so I've been led to believe).

Yes, that is what the rule says. IR may be used to determine if the ball is a home run, not simply to say it isn't so. The MLB directive on that mechanic is crystal clear.

" Instant replay will apply only to home run calls-whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed."

Oh, I get that. But are "directions, memos, etc." not appearing in the rule book really subject to protest? Kind of hard to protest the misinterpretation of a playing rule when it isn't a playing rule.

The rule covering protests specifically says that there must be a misapplication of these rules, obviously refering to the actual "rule book rules".

Ultimately, I suppose the league can rule on anything in any manner they choose. It's their ballgame!

So you continue to ignore facts when presented to you? Who would have thought?

Quoted from the above posted article/ http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ycn-9080723

I am eager to see how MLB refines the IR rule now. I recognize that many still feel that IR has no place in competitive baseball (they are wrong) and this play highlights the need to establish clarity for players, management and fans alike.

Imagine this play had been the final one of the game. IR is pretty handy to have around, especially if your favorite team is the one that benefits from the correct ruling. Now imagine this play happened in the playoffs or World Series...

This "rule" (ie: guideline which does not appear in the rule book) has been regurgitated over and over again in discussions about this call.

But this is really just a cut & paste quote from a three year old MLB press release. We don't know the entire content of the material presented to the umpires or teams, how they have been instructed to interpret it or if the "official" guidelines are more in-depth than that.

Somehow, it just seems to me that an "official" league document covering such a highly controversial subject, where the outcome could have a profound effect on the game, might have something more to it than the two sentence blurb that keeps getting quoted.

Yup, he was right... except for the part about being wrong. Love how he sticks to the letter of the law until that letter of the law no longer supports his case ... at which point we slide into "common sense", which almost always translates as "in agreement with the opinion of the writer" regardless of the topic being discussed.

It's the very underlined portion of that article that is completely false. Interpreting the rules to mean what that says opens things up to the absurd.

Example: A ball near the 1B fence is ruled a catch on the field - R1 then tags and advances to 2nd, defense appeals that he left early and the appeal is denied - runner safe.

Fans are close to the catch, so they review it to see if a fan hit the ball before the catch... and in the replay they notice that the runner did, in fact, leave early.

Using the interpretation underlined by you, the umpire would be "compelled" now to rule the runner out.

This is clearly NOT true.

I used the word "directive". There are hundreds of them issued by MLB and rarely are they in the rule book. The mechanic for handling a need to employ Instant Replay does not need to be stated rule. Mechanics are not rules.