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

[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.