I'm looking at the question given: was the PU's refusal to accept the protest correct? My answer: hell no. Is this PU just afraid of a silly little protest? Get it right, bub. If you blew it, you blew it, but accept the protest of a rule interpretation and get that game moving.

As for the appeal, well, this is simply a missed base appeal. BR was supposed to tag the orange bag, but did not. They missed the bag. I've got another out. :D

So if a coach or manager wants to protest a judgment call, the PU is supposed to accept the protest? Don't think so, bub.

Of course, if the manager doesn't buy that the denial is right, they can always protest that ruling it a judgment call was a misinterpretation of the rules. Then the UIC can come and decide whether the first issue was protestable followed by determining if the rules application was right.
________
lesbians Cam

The coach can protest balls and strikes if he likes. It's not up to the plate umpire to accept or deny. Unless the coach follows up with a written protest to the league officials within the timeframe stipulated by league bylaws, it will become moot.

Even if it is filed properly, the UIC and/or league officials will rule on it or simply throw it out if it's deemed invalid.

If a coach came to me and told me he was protesting my strike zone and I told him it wasn't a protestable issue and he said he was protesting anyway, I'd inform the other coach and get the game moving again.

Ted [sometimes referred to as "bub"]

Thirty-three years ago I saw a game put under protest based on the umpire. Not a play, not an interpretation, not a ruling. Just a protest of the umpire himself.

I know it sounds like something out of Sartre or Kafka, but it did happen. The catcher/manager turned around and said, "We're playing the game under protest." When the umpire responded, "For what?" the catcher said merely "You!" The ump informed the catcher that such a protest was not possible, but the catcher insisted, so the ump announced the protest, and play resumed.

I don't know how the league ruled, but I suspect the protest was not upheld. On the other hand, this was New Jersey . . .

If that game continued with that catcher/manager any where near the fields, then the umpire was indeed an idiot!!!!

So that's what he meant by, "Hell is other people.":D

You are discussing baseball just by indicating their method of player designation. You didn't pay attention to JJ in the OBS/INT portion, did you? :D

So did I at the Cimmaron, Louies and the Bombay Club. And that fiasco from Reg 14. Good food and door prizes, but four hundred umpires and they only buy two kegs and put a 3rd on hold. I can understand not wanting everyone there all night, but damn, to run out of beer is just sinful :rolleyes:

Do we have an answer to the riddle?

Thanx,

Ted

Maybe running out of 3.2 beer is a blessing.

And what was up with the bar closing at 11pm on Thursday?

<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
As noted, rule 9.1.2 notes that a protest based upon the misinterpretation of a rule must be made before the next play.

The discussion is base upon the throw to 3B AFTER the BR missed the base. Some consider this the "next play".

After making a fool of myself by questioning the requirement of "next play" thanks to a brain fart that reverted to "appeal" as opposed to protest, it was explained, if I remember correctly as that is not the manner in which that qualification was intended.

Someone can correct me if wrong. The line of thought was that by using this to refuse the appeal, you are pretty much giving the offending team a break.

However, the more I think about it, I don't believe there really is a problem with the sentence. If used as I believe it was meant, in the play above the misinterpretation of the rule occurred when the umpire determined there was no violation by the BR.

Hence, there was no play between the misinterpretation and the protest. A team cannot protest an interpretation prior to it being made.

Mike,

Sorry, have read your last post zillions of times and have not a clue as to what is right, left, up or down.:confused:
Thanks, Ron

There were several important issues in this play. The following is the official ruling and thought process.

When a play was made at 1st base on the BR, the BR was required to touch the orange bag. Touching only the white bag is a missed base, and can be appealed until the runner returns to either bag. In this case the runner proceeded to 2nd, so the runner did, in fact miss touching the correct base.

The attempt to retire the other runner is not considered a next play; it is a continuation of the current play, would be considered a subsequent play on a different runner under the obstruction exception, but has no bearing on an appeal. When appealed, the correct ruling should be "out". If the ruling is that the BR did touch the orange bag, then that part would be judgment, but any statement that touching white alone would be allowed is a misinterpretation of a playing rule. Since there was no play made between the misinterpretation and the protest, the protest must be allowed; and since the rule was misapplied in the case play (if not clearly stated in the OP), the ruling must be overturned.

So, don't be confused by the "next play"; it was a red herring in the case play, and sure bit Mike. Once the continuing action ended, and time is called (in slow pitch) or could be called (in fast pitch) to hear a dead ball appeal, then and only then can there be a "next play" that would halt a legal protest.

thanks.

Mike still owes me a beer for his public "oops" on this one.....