Phillies protest IR ruling

[Rich]

Torre denied the Phillies protest. No details whatsoever as to why he denied it. I'd have been surprised if this was settled otherwise.

[MD Longhorn]

Guess this means MLB umpires can do whatever the heck they want with replay, and if it turns out they are right, rules be damned...

[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

[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?

[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).

[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!

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[ozzy6900]

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

Thank you for that article. I originally thought that it was incorrect that Joe went to the IR but not knowing the ground rules of that park, I now have to agree with Joe. Simply put, all one of the crew has to suggest is that the ball may have been a HR and the crew must user the IR if there is any doubt.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Thank you for that article. I originally thought that it was incorrect that Joe went to the IR but not knowing the ground rules of that park, I now have to agree with Joe. Simply put, all one of the crew has to suggest is that the ball may have been a HR and the crew must user the IR if there is any doubt.

The problem is the crew didn't show any doubt at first and seemed willing to let the play stand until McKeon came out to argue for interference.

[umpjong]

Its actually pretty simple unless you dont want to see it.

West asked his crew what they had after he was questioned on what happened with the ball in play (not what happened at a different base). Pretty standard stuff for umpires. Crews dont run to other crew members if they see something, they wait until asked. Plate guy had something different than West and stated that it may even have been a home run. This is when West went to check the replay. He would have been resoundingly second guessed if he had not done what he did. Now if you want to accuse West of lying about his PU then go ahead. Seemed pretty clear after the umpires huddled up he went straight for the replay of that specific play of that specific batted ball.