Phillies protest IR ruling
 

The Phillies are playing today's game under protest. Crew chief: Joe West. He used replay to call spectator interference on a fair ball that was clearly not a home run / no home run consideration. The Phillies are now losing, too. (Wait, they just took the lead again.)

Joe was the covering umpire and probably got about 4 feet closer to the play from his position. It appears (just looking at the replay guidelines) that spectator interference is in play, but only on potential home run balls.

Charlie Manuel was quickly ejected. When he tried to protest the game, West told him he didn't exist anymore and made the acting manager file the protest.

What was Charlie Manuel ejected for? Did he get a little crazy on Joe, or was he being his "innocent choir boy" self? Joe didn't just dump him for questioning the call did he?

Arguing a replay decision is an automatic ejection. About 3 sentences in, Joe gave the left-handed wave.

The overall delay was almost 15 minutes. The last 10 was the aftermath of the replay decision that included two conferences by the crew (one before and one after the game was protested).

So, if they originally ruled HR, IR is allowed to determine if there was fan interference. I assume if they ruled FI after the IR, the IR rule would allow an out to be called. But, once they called the ball in play, the IR rule does not seem to allow for it to be used for a determination of FI. Replays in StL and KC a few weeks ago were wrong. Back to the drawing board with IR.

It would be nice if the Phillies lost so MLB would have to rule on the protest. Otherwise, it'll just be thrown out as moot and we will never know what the decision would have been. The spirit of the IR rule seems to be that it covers Fan Interference, at least for balls hit fair at the outfield wall. You would have thought they would have considered this in the wording, it is not something that was hard to anticipate.

Phillies protest IR ruling
 

This play probably warrants its own thread. No video replays yet, but this link has a good still shot.
Phillies play game vs. Marlins under protest | 6abc.com

The ball seemed to be near the top of the wall, and any ball that a fan can interfere with might be a home run. Therefore, it's legitimate to use replay to determine whether it was a home run. I predict that the protest of the use of replay on this call will fail.

Moreover, based on the replay, it seems the crew got the call right. The fan reached over the field of play and touched the ball. That's spectator INT, and the crew can award outs and move runners at will. If the protest concerns the details of this call, it will fail on this account as well.

Pirate Protest Is Upheld - NYTimes.com

The last protest that was upheld was 25 years ago.

It seems unlikely McKeon went out to ask for a replay to see if it was a HR. According to the replay rules, IR can only be used for HR to in-play or in-play to HR....or if there was FI on a HR call. The replay was used here to see if there was FI on an in-play call which the IR rule does not seem to allow as written.

The details are unimportant -- judgment calls are never subject to protest.

It's whether West can use replay here or not.

It could prove interesting to see a protest upheld on the point being made that caused an automatic ejection.

The Phillies just lost. At least we'll get a ruling now.

The protest involves a play that had a significant impact on the outcome of the game. In such cases, and there haven't been many at the MLB level, play is resumed from the point of contention. What happens to the stats from innings 6 to 14? Would they all be wiped from the books, or just the winning and losing pitcher stat?

http://www.retrosheet.org/protests.htm

This is about as complete a list of resumed games after protest as you'll find. Most of them had to do with rain or curfew delays that simply had the games start up again. As best I can tell, this might be the first game in MLB history where more than half of the innings played could be negated if it is to be resumed from the point of protest.

It looks like Joe West caught on to the deficiency in the IR rule by the time of his postgame statement where he contended Manuel asked for a replay to see if it was a HR. Manuel was adamant that he did not. Nobody in the park thought it was ever a HR, the only question was if there was fan interference. And the rule was not written to cover that. It was meant to overturn the HR call that the Maier kid interfered with by the way it is worded. Nevertheless it was the consensus of the ESPN crew that the protest would not be upheld, mainly because "they got the call right".

Ball near the top of the wall - why not?

Did you just call him fat?

No, he called him slow. There are also fast fat people (Bruce Froemming comes to mind) and slow skinny people.

Certainly not Froemming in his later years. By then, he was virtually stationary.

No, I called him lazy. Big difference. He's forgotten more than I'll ever know about baseball, but I haven't seen him hustle anywhere in a long time.

Here's the video if you haven't seen it yet >>>> Phillies Protest FI Call.

I don't think that the ball had a chance of going out but it may have hit the yellow stripe. I don't know if that would be a HR in that park or not. Also, there is speculation from the announcers that the fielder wouldn't have caught the ball. It is obvious that his glove hit the fan's hand and that caused the glove to close.

• Fan Interference? Absolutely!
• Should it have been reviewed? Going but the rules of replay, I have to say that I would not have reviewed it.
• Was Joe wrong in doing so? That would be up to the commissioner (if there really was one).

MLB tells umpire crew it mistakenly used replay | Bleacher Report

Somewhat related, MLB said that replay could not be used to rule whether FI occurred on a ball bounding over the wall in a ground rule double situation. It probably seemed to the crew that it was a very logical extension, but MLB specified the distinction then.

No, but Bruce routinely whooped up on skinny people who thought he was slow when he was a younger umpire. He would challenge them to a 40 yard dash and pound them mercilessly, surprising them with his speed.

Therefore we all know this cannot be the reason it's not upheld... since we all know that any utterance of an announcer is automatically wrong.

Because the rule does not include this case. That's why not.

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.

Because it's their rule and they get to decide when it applies - we don't.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you (and only you, apparently) think this could have been a home run. Did you see the video?

If the fan was behind the wall and hit the ball knocking it back in, we'd have a home run, no? So if you were 200 yards away and didn't have a good sense of whether the fielder reached into the stands or the fan reached into the field, you might need replay to determine if it was a home run. (And the replay was clear it was the latter but I gather nobody got that great a look at it live.)

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.

200 yards? Joe West should've been no more than 200 *feet* from the ball. He was the U1 and it was his ball since there was a runner on first base. I'd love to see how far out he got on it. I already know the answer to that.

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

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...

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.

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.

Except in the first sentence of your post: "Yes, that is what the rule says". So you actually called it both.

Exactly. Are mechanics employed by the umpires protestable?

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:rolleyes:). 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.

No one is saying he's lying. We're taking him at his word. But changing THIS call based on replay was not within the purview of the Replay "rules". It really is that simple.

This discussion is much like what happened (or would have happened had Al Gore invented the interwebs back then) on the Fisk - Arbruster play. The ruling wasn't consistent with the "rules book" but was correct by interpretation given to umpires (and maybe teams) before the event. Since no one else had the interpretation, there was much handwrining and gnashing of teeth. But, the umpires were right.

Confusing mechanics here. Ozzy opines that the crew "must" use replay. Yet the PU needs to remain silent about his view until West asks for it in a conference. And the conference was not convened until after McKeon came out. That just doesn't seem a consistent procedure.

You do realize that MLB says it is? So yes it is that simple.

The crew didn't have the chance to get together before McKeon came out. He's pretty quick for his age! :D

Just because MLB says it is, doesn't make it so. We have the replay directive. What West did is not allowed by that directive. MLB can say the sky is green as much as they want but it doesn't make it so.

Obviously one of two things is going on here: MLB has issued a new, nonpublic directive that permits more extensive use of replay than we've been lead to believe or West went off the reservation but MLB is unwilling to reign him back in.

MLB has suffered for years from being overly secretive so neither one would surprise me.

You're funny.

+1

What part dont you understand? The PU questioned whether the ball would have been a home run less the fan interference. Thus the replay. Just like the directive states. Even without replay the umpires could have got together and the information from the PU could have changed the call without the replay. Sounds like it might have been ruled a home run with the information provided by PU but with the replay the umpires were able to get it right. Will the directive be re worded? Probably, but give West credit for this one, we all know he needs one once in a while.

Heres a quote from a Philly paper,

So what?

Spoken by a real "want to be" umpire! Tell me, when was your last baseball game that you really officiated? You blurt out your vomit on this board trying to be "one of the gang" and we all know that you are an "arm chair umpire". You still haven't gotten the picture that things are not cut and dried by the printed rule. Of course, if you really officiated, you would realize this.

-1... -2 really. Trusting a quote from a newspaper? Again ... you're funny.

You're not helping yourself with newspaper quotes. The rule is specific: IR may be used only for determining HR/no HR. No amount of study by anyone changes that.

So you have inside knowledge of MLB? :rolleyes:
To bad you cant understand simple, or I should say refuse to accept simple concepts. You really want to continue to believe that MLB would have their people simply ignore part of a play they are reviewing then go ahead. I choose to believe that they handled this particular play within their rules and correctly.

And I see that you ignore the fact that the article stated that the league contended that the ruling was correct. I suppose the paper was lying along with West.

Wow... I think you might actually even believe yourself. Wow.

If anyone is claiming any inside knowledge it's you. What EVERYONE else is saying is that based on what IS published, this ruling is wrong. Replay (at least in the information we're allowed to see) does NOT include the opportunity to look at the replay for one reason and then make a ruling for a different one (and one not included in those things that you ARE allowed to use replay for). You can CHOOSE to believe whatever you want... we can't stop you. But you've yet to post how it's within the published rules (good luck with that... it's not!)

And really... you're basing your "fact" on the opinion of a newspaper writer? I wonder what other fabricated nonsense we see in the paper you now take as fact. I would HATE to get into a political discussion with you if you're believing everything you read from people who would not know what they were writing about (as in this case). PS - NO ONE has said West was lying. Just you saying that we said that. I think, now, that I know what party you would belong to should that political discussion every happen. Typical strawman argument idiocy.

I think this has pretty much run it's course.