The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 02:31pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,785
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.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 02:41pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post

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?
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 02:46pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
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).
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 03:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
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.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
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.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 03:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
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
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 03:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 04:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
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.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 04:17pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
The details are unimportant -- judgment calls are never subject to protest.

It's whether West can use replay here or not.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 05:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
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).
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.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 05:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
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.

Last edited by Larry1953; Sun Sep 04, 2011 at 05:33pm.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 07:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
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".
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 07:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
The details are unimportant -- judgment calls are never subject to protest.

It's whether West can use replay here or not.
Ball near the top of the wall - why not?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 10:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
Joe was the covering umpire and probably got about 4 feet closer to the play from his position.
Did you just call him fat?
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 04, 2011, 10:27pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phillies 23, Cubs 22.... ASA/NYSSOBLUE Baseball 8 Mon May 18, 2009 11:33am
Phillies - Brewers Interference SRW Softball 14 Tue Oct 07, 2008 04:56pm
Phillies & Braves, 7/11 mrm21711 Baseball 3 Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:11am
protest ruling Wallyjay Baseball 6 Thu Jul 25, 2002 03:17am
Ineligible Pitchers Protest--Ruling Help jpshaughnessy Baseball 11 Mon May 28, 2001 10:39am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1