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

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

F3 didn't have a prayer to catch the ball so how was he interfered with?

Remember - the interference has to be with the fielder taking the throw.

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.

[Rita C]

Not even close to being upheld.

Rita

[tmagan]

Second worst rule in baseball to the step balk. A play like that happened in San Francisco this week to the Mets, and Terry Collins is right, asking the batter-runner to stay in the baseline, with the bag in fair territory is a problem waiting to happen. A call like that helped the Angels in game five of the 2005 ALDS against the Yankees and probably cost the Yankees the series. Either have it like softball, with a separate bag in foul territory, or extend the bag into foul territory with replay available to help the umpires if the batted ball hit the first base bag.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by tmagan

Second worst rule in baseball to the step balk. A play like that happened in San Francisco this week to the Mets, and Terry Collins is right, asking the batter-runner to stay in the baseline, with the bag in fair territory is a problem waiting to happen. A call like that helped the Angels in game five of the 2005 ALDS against the Yankees and probably cost the Yankees the series. Either have it like softball, with a separate bag in foul territory, or extend the bag into foul territory with replay available to help the umpires if the batted ball hit the first base bag.

Seriously? As it is, umpires generally expect the runner to veer into fair territory a bit before the bag.

And remember, the foul line is part of the running lane and it is entirely in fair territory. So if the left foot is on the line, there should be no great need to veer.

Rita

Plus it's 45 ft! Not too much to ask.

[DG]

Originally Posted by tmagan

Second worst rule in baseball to the step balk. A play like that happened in San Francisco this week to the Mets, and Terry Collins is right, asking the batter-runner to stay in the baseline, with the bag in fair territory is a problem waiting to happen. A call like that helped the Angels in game five of the 2005 ALDS against the Yankees and probably cost the Yankees the series. Either have it like softball, with a separate bag in foul territory, or extend the bag into foul territory with replay available to help the umpires if the batted ball hit the first base bag.

Evans says, and it is generally understood, that the BR must step outside the runners lane to step on the bag. There is a difference between running a significant distance in fair territory, vs. just the last few feet to step on the bag. Nothing wrong with this rule.

[grunewar]

No surprise here.....

Angels' protest of 8-6 loss at White Sox denied ? USATODAY.com

[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?

[tmagan]

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?

The two umpires who always wore the most jewelry were Doug Harvey and Eric Gregg.

I also remember Lee Weyer and Fred Brocklander also wearing watches, even behind the plate.

[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.