Phillies protest IR ruling

[umpjong]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The difference here is that it was not ruled a home run. The ball hit the glove, and was apparently ruled as such. And it was Florida's manager that came out initially. For some reason I'm thinking he's not coming out asking them to check and see if it was a home run. the rule doesn't say, as you state, they can check on any ball that's close to the yellow line.

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.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by umpjong

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

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.

[BretMan]

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?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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?

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).

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Disagree. A ball near the yellow line might be a HR and so reviewable.

I believe that MLB declared that IR was used improperly in this case, but I don't see why.

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."

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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).

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!

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

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.

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

Some have erroneously and speciously claimed the only thing instant replay can be used for is to determine whether a home run was a home run. This is not factual. The rule clearly allows for determinations of whether a ball that bounced off the top of a wall, or a foul pole, or was interfered with by a fan and then bounced back onto the field of play, should have been a home run. The claim that the initial ruling on the field had to be a home run is beyond ridiculous. For that would mean the instant replay rule could only be used to negate home runs.

Anyone who even briefly researches the instant replay rule and its history knows this not to be the case. Therefore, it's clear that once Fairchild believed the initial ruling may have been incorrect, and that fan interference may have prevented a home run for Pence, West not only had the authority to initiate an instant replay review, he was compelled to by the rule.

Furthermore, as West himself stated, once the review was underway, he could not ignored evidence gleaned from the review, and could not ignore the fan interference that was obvious from the video evidence. Those arguing he should have ignored all common sense, and apparently believe MLB would agree their umpires should so narrowly interpret the instant replay rule (which doesn't specifically or expressly forbid them from considering such evidence once the review has been initiated) as to ignore that evidence, and the infractions it may include, are simply wrong.

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

[MikeStrybel]

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...

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

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."

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjong

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

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjong

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



Quoted from the above posted article/ Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

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.