Phillies protest IR ruling

[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!