Double protest on same call.

[SNIPERBBB]

If this play happened in a rule set where protests are allowed...how would this be handled.

One or no outs. Play at the plate, defense catcher jumps in the way of R1 last second resulting in a crash. Runner touches plate and subsequent runner R2 crosses the plate. After play, U1 rules R1 out for not sliding. Offense protests R1 fulfilled obligation to attempt avoid contact and there's no rule requiring a slide. Defense protests that R2 and R3 who is now on third should be returned last bases at time of the crash

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

One or no outs. Play at the plate, defense catcher jumps in the way of R1 last second resulting in a crash. Runner touches plate and subsequent runner R2 crosses the plate. After play, U1 rules R1 out for not sliding. Offense protests R1 fulfilled obligation to attempt avoid contact and there's no rule requiring a slide. Defense protests that R2 and R3 who is now on third should be returned last bases at time of the crash

OK, I'll give it a shot.

First, check USA RS 13.F.
Since this doesn't meet the criteria for a crash, some might argue for OBS. Since OBS (or not) is a judgment call, it is not protestable.
Unless there is a league bylaw, there is no requirement to slide. I think this would be a legitimate protest on the umpire's misinterpretation.
Moving runners back would have involved an INT call, immediate dead ball, and runners returned to last base touched at the time of the INT. INT (or not) is also a judgment call.

That's what I think.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

OK, I'll give it a shot.

First, check USA RS 13.F.
Since this doesn't meet the criteria for a crash, some might argue for OBS. Since OBS (or not) is a judgment call, it is not protestable.
Unless there is a league bylaw, there is no requirement to slide. I think this would be a legitimate protest on the umpire's misinterpretation.
Moving runners back would have involved an INT call, immediate dead ball, and runners returned to last base touched at the time of the INT. INT (or not) is also a judgment call.

That's what I think.

Also, what is U1 doing poking his/her nose into a call at the plate?

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Also, what is U1 doing poking his/her nose into a call at the plate?

Sorry. I was in basketball mode for some reason. Should of been PU

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If this play happened in a rule set where protests are allowed...how would this be handled.

One or no outs. Play at the plate, defense catcher jumps in the way of R1 last second resulting in a crash. Runner touches plate and subsequent runner R2 crosses the plate. After play, U1 rules R1 out for not sliding. Offense protests R1 fulfilled obligation to attempt avoid contact and there's no rule requiring a slide. Defense protests that R2 and R3 who is now on third should be returned last bases at time of the crash

I will answer based on a league I work and the rules within that league, including protests.

the league does require the players "to slide of give themselves up to avoid contact with a player making a play on them."

To me, the OP seems to imply that the catcher does not have the ball at the time she "jumps in the way of R1." At this point, we now have an obstruction call. Since there is a violation by the defense (obstruction), in which the defense is not making a play on the runner (can't make a play on a runner if you don't have the ball), the rule requiring a slide or giving themselves up does not apply.

In this case, when the umpire ruled the runner out for not sliding, he has misapplied the rule. A protest on such call would be upheld, the run would be allowed to score and all subsequent action would be legal as well.

Since the appeal appeal by the offense is upheld, and the runner is not declared out, the appeal by the defense regarding positioning of the runner is moot.

One other thing the league rules do state is regarding the required slide being interference or not.

The key part is along these lines. "If a player does not slide or give themselves up and causes significant contact with a defensive player making a play on them, he or she shall be ruled out and ejected. In the judgment of the umpire, if the contact prevents the defense from making a play on another runner, the runner who created the contact shall be called out for interference (and ejected) and the ball shall be ruled dead. If the contact does not prevent the defense from making a play on another runner, the ball shall remain live."

The reason for this is that it puts the judgment of the umpire into play. The umpire has to judge if there was a potential play on another runner. This also brings in a key part of the league rules. Judgment calls by an umpire are not protestable.

A final part of the rule states that a player is ejected for violating this rule. I have had this come up once. A girl absolutely plowed over the catcher trying to score. This was a clear case of malicious contact no matter the league rule or not. I had to apply both the league rule (out and ejection), and the sanctioning body rule for malicious contact (ejection). The run did not count, the girl was ejected, and both coaches were happy I made the call.

The girl had apparently done that previously and wasn't called out for it. I was the first umpire to actually make the call, which her coaches were happy of because they had warned her several times to stop running into the catcher on play at the plate.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I had to apply both the league rule (out and ejection), and the sanctioning body rule for malicious contact (ejection).

That being ejection twice, the second DQ is administered as a suspension from the next game, right?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

OK, I'll give it a shot.

First, check USA RS 13.F.
Since this doesn't meet the criteria for a crash, some might argue for OBS. Since OBS (or not) is a judgment call, it is not protestable.
Unless there is a league bylaw, there is no requirement to slide. I think this would be a legitimate protest on the umpire's misinterpretation.
Moving runners back would have involved an INT call, immediate dead ball, and runners returned to last base touched at the time of the INT. INT (or not) is also a judgment call.

That's what I think.

If the umpire says he judged that the defense player was in the offensive players way but for some reason it wasn't obstruction, then that is a rules misapplication.
Just because something is a judgment call, doesn't mean you can't get it on protest, you just can't get it on protest if the reason for the mistake is judgment. For example, suppose that the defense turns a 1-2-3 double play but the umpire calls the runner at first safe. If he calls the runner at first safe, because he believes the runner beat the throw, then wrong or not, the defense loses their protest. But if he calls the runner safe because he thought the force was off because of the out at home then he loses the protest. It doesn't matter that safe or out at first is a judgment call.

In this play, the conversation with the umpire becomes critical. Suppose that in this league the offense has the rule exactly right. The coach really should pin the umpire down immediately on the judgment elements of the play. Blue, why did you call my runner out?
She didn't slide.
Did you see her to try to avoid the contact?
Yes, but she has to slide.
Okay, well we protest.
At this point, you've established all the judgment elements of the play and any armchair internet forum official can nail the correct call.

And as the defense, in this discussion when they call the runner out for sliding. Blue, you saw that she didn't try to avoid the contact right? Because that judgment gets you the out anyway.

The defenses protest is pretty simple. You misapplied the penalty for what was called.

As to how they interplay: if the losing team is right, then they get to replay the game from that point with the correct adjudication so they both might as well protest both issues.