Does the Angel's protest have a leg to stand on?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Not surprised at the denial but, I have to ask what is it with the pretty necklace around U1 neck? Are the officials going to gold chains next?

I thought the necklace was quite fashionable, especially with the white tee shirt underneath. I thought white tees were only for softball!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DG

Looks like he caught the ball. The fact that he had to dive off the bag to do it makess it not a quality throw and thus no RLI.

I am surprised that Mike would protest the game on a call in the first inning, that was indeed a judgment call.

Mike should know better, since he played the position.

But he probably believed that any throw to first base that is off because of the BR's position outside the lane is cause for a RLI call. There are many who don't understand that the INT has to be with the fielder taking the throw, not with the fielder throwing it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mike Scioscia

'I see some of the things they're saying, but I also feel strongly in the stances that we took on it. If there's a trash can in the middle of the lane and you're driving and you veer off into a ditch and crash your car, the insurance company is going to say, 'Well, the trash can was in the middle of the road. But we're not going to pay because you're the one who veered off the road.'

''I think it's the same thing,'' Scioscia continued. ''In my opinion, there's no way from a fixed point of home plate to first base in a lane that a catcher has to throw a ball at a runner who's a solid 3 feet inside the lane on the grass can possibly not impair the ability of a catcher to make that throw. It's just physically impossible to say that it does not impair that. But, still, the judgment of the umpires is the second part of the equation and we'll live with that.''

1. Tell your driver not to swerve, and to hit the trash can next time. Oh, and is the trash can running? And who is the insurance company in this analogy? Same thing, really?

2. This is the mistake: it's not RLI to interfere with the throw, but with the catch.

3. Another BS thing: paraphrasing Scioscia, he said "I accept MLB's decision but I think they're wrong. They just want umpire error to remain part of the game." Either MLB made crap up because they don't understand the rule, or Scioscia is full of crap.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbyron

...Either MLB made crap up because they don't understand the rule, or Scioscia is full of crap.

Well, since Joe Torre apparently ruled on the protest, you may have six of one, half dozen of the other!

As I said in my opening post, this is a judgment call, not subject to protest. Really, that's all Torre had to say. He wouldn't have to get into the fact that the interference is not with the throw, but with the catch, since the call is not protestable to begin with.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dakota

As I said in my opening post, this is a judgment call, not subject to protest. Really, that's all Torre had to say.

That might indeed be all he said. And what Scioscia heard was, "We want to live with umpires' mistakes!"

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

As I said in my opening post, this is a judgment call, not subject to protest. Really, that's all Torre had to say. He wouldn't have to get into the fact that the interference is not with the throw, but with the catch, since the call is not protestable to begin with.

Actually, it's not a judgment call. It's a rule misinterpretation on Scioscia's part that required Torre's exact comment to clarify.

OBR 6.05(k) says, in part, "...in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base..." Scioscia argued that the runner's position "impair[ed] the ability of a catcher to make that throw." If the crew chief told Scioscia that interference happens with the fielder receiving the throw and not the catcher making it, and Scioscia disagrees, that's certainly grounds for a protest.

Torre's comment made it obvious that Scioscia didn't know what the heck he was talking about.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Torre's comment made it obvious that Scioscia didn't know what the heck he was talking about.

What was Torre's comment? The only statement by MLB was the press release. Here's the entire thing:

Originally Posted by MLB Press Release 08/06/2012

Major League Baseball announced today that Executive Vice President for Baseball Operations Joe Torre has denied the formal protest filed by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim regarding their Friday, August 3rd game against the Chicago White Sox at U.S. Cellular Field.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What was Torre's comment? The only statement by MLB was the press release.

Sorry; I misinterpreted Dakota's comment when he wrote, "Really, that's all Torre had to say. He wouldn't have to get into the fact that the interference is not with the throw, but with the catch, since the call is not protestable to begin with." I thought Torre actually said that!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sorry; I misinterpreted Dakota's comment when he wrote, "Really, that's all Torre had to say. He wouldn't have to get into the fact that the interference is not with the throw, but with the catch, since the call is not protestable to begin with." I thought Torre actually said that!

No worries. I suspect that Torre called Scioscia and spoke to him on the phone. Scioscia's remark to the press, which says basically that we have to live with umpire mistakes, make it sound as if Torre suggested the matter was a judgment call.

This is all speculation, of course. Kinda like figuring out the Politburo!

I agree with you, however, that Scioscia misunderstands the rule: his appeal was appropriately lodged (he challenged the rule interpretation rather than a judgment call) and appropriately denied (he misinterpreted the rule).

[Manny A]

Here's an interesting article. This guy has done his homework...

Umpires Get It Right: Mike Scioscia's Angels Will Lose Protest over Call vs. CWS | Bleacher Report

[tmagan]

There will probably never be a protest upheld again. In today's game with limited days off and visits to non-divisional teams once a year, rescheduling these games are impossible.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, since Joe Torre apparently ruled on the protest, .

The article says he announced the result. It doesn't say he made the decision.

[brainbrian]

Separate from the protest, I am confused how this is not runner interference. The runner seems to even have a foot on the grass. Of course the throw was not good, you can see the runner in the path and how Pujols has to stretch his glove out to get around the runner. And the catcher has come a step or two out from home plate also to try and get around the runner. That's why it was a bad throw.



What if the throw had hit the runner in the back? Any different ruling for that?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

Separate from the protest, I am confused how this is not runner interference. The runner seems to even have a foot on the grass. Of course the throw was not good, ...

What if the throw had hit the runner in the back? Any different ruling for that?

You've answered your own first question. You need to understand the rule: RLI is special because it involves interference with taking the throw, not making the throw. So by interpretation, it must be a quality throw that would otherwise have retired the runner. As you state, that's not what we had here, so no RLI.

You can now answer your second question: if the throw hits him in the back, would it have retired him? Probably, hence in that case we'd call RLI if he's out of the lane.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

...I am confused how this is not runner interference. The runner seems to even have a foot on the grass. Of course the throw was not good, you can see the runner in the path and how Pujols has to stretch his glove out to get around the runner. And the catcher has come a step or two out from home plate also to try and get around the runner. That's why it was a bad throw....What if the throw had hit the runner in the back? Any different ruling for that?

Because that is not what the rule states here is 6.05 (k)

In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;

The batter-runner can only interfere with the fielder taking the throw. He cannot interfere with the player making the throw.