But what if 2 "knew" it to be one way and 2 "knew" it to be another way (as earlier in this discussion?

It does point out why Ipersonllay hate these types of questions -- change one small thing and the answer changes; change another and the answer changes back.

So you're the UIC?

Of the local league, yes.

And about two umpires thinking one call is right and two thinking another, I guess that could happen but at least that means they got together. Which they never did.

They didn't get together because the PU never accepted the protest (at least according to the OP). No protest, no reason to meet.

That said, I don't know why the PU and the TD didn't allow the protest to go through. I guess the question should be, was the manager protesting the interference call, or the ruling on who was out? If it was the interference call, and the PU felt that the batter did something to warrant the call, like lean back or move his bat, then a protest is not allowed since this would be a judgment call. But if the protest was because of the improper player being ruled out, or if the PU erroneously ruled that the batter should have vacated the box on the snap throw, then a protest is valid.

So, what exactly was protested??

If this is how it happened I have nothing. This is a HTBT situation since there are so many stories going around.

I think we can "guess" why there was not a protest. The original poster saw the play different from you. You have a different version and my gut tells me
if we asked several people who were at the game we would get a 3rd / 4th version.

Also, you say no interference BUT the batter held his bat high in the air according to the original OP.

Is that part correct according to you?

If so, there is a good case for an interference call. B1 is not supposed to have his bat high in the air when a play is going on.

Also, you said you were UIC so you should be backing the men and women in blue.

Manny was "spot on" in his answer as to why the 4 umpires didn't get together. There was no reason to. The other umpires would be overstepping their bounds had they interjected without the PU asking for help and if you are "truly" a UIC you should know that.

Sounds like you have a grudge against this particular group of umpires.

Pete Booth

No matter what happened the manager could have refused to continue play. If the local officials felt the protest was not about a rule they would have threatened forfeit. Then if the manager still refused to play a call would have had to be made to region and on up to rule on the forfeit.

I agree with this! A valid protest is never denied in tournament play, at least not in my experience. We aren't getting the full story on this, I suspect.

Why is it still an issue?

Make sure in the future that managers learn what to do if an umpire won't accept a protest. Cover that at the mandatory managers meeting.

But then, in our district, if a manager says "Protest" we accept it, even if we know there isn't grounds.

Rita

I am smart enough to realize that when an unpire makes a mistake they should also be told they made a mistake. I was at the game. A mistake was made. I think it makes a big difference to me that I was at the game and not saying what happened as according to what someone told me. Did I want my brothers team to win, of course, that's why I never unpire their games. But my integrity is more important to me than any game. The plate umpire said he held the bat high. I don't think he did but that's his judgement. I already said that before. Can't argue with that. But the rule is not a judgement. A rule is a rule.
Anyone that knows me knows that rules are important to me.

About the protest. I was not in the conversation between the manager and the umpire. Regardless of that the plate umpire was wrong.

And to me its not an issue anymore. The game is over and will never change. I just hope in the future the rule would be inforced properly. I have made mistakes before. I learn from them. And will make some again.

This is a question from a someone who works other sports, so it's out of ignorance.

Does it matter whether the manager requests a protest of the call (judgment) or the penalty (rule)?

Just curious.

The process for a protest, as I have been taught, is once the mgr has said he is playing the game under protest, the umpires should get together and discuss the ruling on the field, if they decide to not change it, then the UIC (home plate umpire) makes a notation in the score book about the nature of the protest and game situation at the time.

The umpires should accept any protest given to them, regardless of whether they feel its a valid protest or not. I once had a manager file a protest because the light on the snack bar didn't come on when it was supposed to, which was how the games at this field were called for darkness.

[QUOTE]Told by whom?

here is what you said which is what we are commenting on

It is you who are UIC that need to know umpire protocol.

Unless there is a protest (which there wasn't) OR the PU requests help, there is no reason for the other umpires to get involved. This has nothing to do with the other umpires knowing the rule or not.

Pete Booth

Perhaps... and perhaps not. You were not in the conversation. The correctness of the plate umpire's actions (as you should know) depend ENTIRELY on the content of that conversation. On a couple of points.

1) If the manager was "protesting" whether there was interference at all or not (like you said ... pure judgement), the umpire AND the TD were correct in not allowing this protest to move on. Judgement calls are not protestable, and not subject to the "stop everything down and call the next level up" protest procedure.

2) More importantly, and no one has mentioned this yet ... it was said the manager had a fit and got ejected. He CANNOT insist on a protest at this point. He cannot even request one - his words, after his ejection, are entirely moot.

Had the manager been arguing about who should be called out AND used the word "protest" BEFORE he was tossed - then everything else you're being told here is correct - the protest should have been called in and likely (assuming your description of the play and the umpire's description of the play line up).

(One other question ... is it possible the umpire ruled that the batter interfered INTENTIONALLY?)

As you said, you don't know exactly what was discussed between umpire and manager, and it's entirely possible that what the manager says (after the fact) he said and what he actually said differ greatly. I'd be curious to hear not only the PU's version of that conversation but the TD's version of the subsequent conversation... and whether "protest" happened before or after the ejection.