The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Does the Angel's protest have a leg to stand on? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/92189-does-angels-protest-have-leg-stand.html)

Dakota Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:29am
Does the Angel's protest have a leg to stand on?
 
They are apparently protesting the non-call of the running lane violation by Konerko.

I would have thought this would be a judgment call, and hence not protestable, but I'm just a fan as far as MLB rules go.

Does this protest even have a chance? (I mean technically, not politically.)

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | LAA@CWS: Scioscia argues call, protests game - Video | angels.com: Multimedia

rbmartin Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:17pm
Not a chance.

Rich Ives Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:17pm
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.

mbyron Sat Aug 04, 2012 01:02pm
Agree, no chance for protest. Not a quality throw (one which would have retired the runner absent the interference).

rbmartin Sat Aug 04, 2012 02:52pm
It has been 26 years since last sucessful protest...don't hold your breath.

Steven Tyler Sat Aug 04, 2012 05:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin (Post 850975)
It has been 26 years since last sucessful protest...don't hold your breath.
And it wasn't Tim McClelland's call either.

DG Sat Aug 04, 2012 07:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 850962)
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 Sat Aug 04, 2012 07:54pm
Not even close to being upheld.

Rita

tmagan Sat Aug 04, 2012 09:13pm
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 Sat Aug 04, 2012 09:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagan (Post 851001)
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 Sun Aug 05, 2012 07:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagan (Post 851001)
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 Mon Aug 06, 2012 03:43pm
Update
 
No surprise here.....

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

jicecone Mon Aug 06, 2012 09:06pm
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 Mon Aug 06, 2012 09:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 851176)
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.

Rita C Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:57pm
Angels' protest of 8-6 loss at White Sox denied - Yahoo! Sports

I thought you all might enjoy Scioscia's whine. He still thinks the ruling was incorrect.

Rita

Manny A Tue Aug 07, 2012 09:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 851176)
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! :cool:

Manny A Tue Aug 07, 2012 09:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG (Post 850995)
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. :p

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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:19am
Quote:
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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 851225)
...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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 851253)
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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 01:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 851253)
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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 02:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 851295)
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:

Quote:
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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 02:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 851301)
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! :rolleyes:

mbyron Tue Aug 07, 2012 02:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 851302)
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! :rolleyes:
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 Tue Aug 07, 2012 03:01pm
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 Wed Aug 08, 2012 07:24pm
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 Thu Aug 09, 2012 09:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 851253)
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 Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:22am
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.

http://brianschaefer.net/temp/ump.jpg

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

mbyron Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brainbrian (Post 851478)
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 Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brainbrian (Post 851478)
...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)

Quote:
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.

brainbrian Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:48am
Makes sense to me now. Thanks mbyron and tcarilli.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1