I can think of one, and only one... and it's actually quite similar to what we're talking about. (And it wasn't even the rules interpretor - it was simply the League President).

A league I was working had in their Calvinball rules that "No inning shall start with less than 5 minutes on the clock." Never mind that this is a stupid rule - it was what it was. In this particular case, this was the first week of the season, and while they bothered to get their made-up rules to the coaches, no one bothered to tell the umpires that there was ANY made-up rules, so we didn't know about this one.

Inning ends - 2 minutes to go (I know - my fault, right?). We tell HT to take the field. After 2 batters, LP wanders over and gets our attention, and tells us the rule. We ask to see it, he shows us, Game over, retroactively. No protest necessary. Why? Because the game ends when the game ends. Similar to the sitch we're talking about, really. And those 2 batters never happened.

My understanding of Big Slick's sitch and your response was that the umpires were told by the rule interpreter to continue the game. If the other team had filed a protest that the game should not have been continued, who would the protest have gone to? Someone else? Sounded to me like it would go back to the same rule interpreter who told the umpires to resume the game.

That's not how I read it. I think the umpires were talking into returning by the visitor's AC. I think the rule inventor was brought in later - not sure if she was just called with a question, or if it was in response to a complaint. That part wasn't clear, but I do believe it was later.

No, the rule interpreter did not get involved until the situation was presented to her a day or two after.

Simply stated:
The umpires, after leaving the field, honored the appeal. This was a misapplication of rule And rules This situation was brought to the attention of the rule interpreter by the head of the umpiring group, as this game could have influenced conference standing and championship seeding. Like everyone else, we (the umpire's group) expected the home team to be awarded the victory . . after all, the game ended (6.2 Game Winner - The winner of the game shall be the team that scores more runs in a regulation game. 6.12.1 A regulation game shall be seven innings). However, we noticed that the conference standing were never changed to indicate a victory by the home team.

A few weeks later, while in conversation with the term expiring rules interpreter, I made the comment: "I know you were asked a lot of strange things this year, but was there any stranger than what happened at (location)?" Other umpires then inquired what happened, the story was told. That's when she gave your interpretation that 1) this was a misapplication of a playing rule(s), 2) home team had a right to protest and did not. I was shocked, because I believed in the absolute nature of 6.2/6.12.1. Therefore, I asked if a coach is protected by these rules. Well, I guess you know how this ends. And if the home coach protest before the "resumption", yes, that protest would have been upheld.

As I said before, all rule codes have these set of rules about a regulation game and appeal procedure at the end of a game. They are all the same. And Irish made a great statement, about this rule being absolute. However, if these rules are absolute or not absolute is a matter of interpretation for a particular rule code. Sometimes you have to allow the authority of a rule code exercise that authority. That doesn't make anyone wrong or right, it allows rule codes to govern by their own spirit and philosophy.

Or, she was wrong, but still had the authority to be wrong.

There are, in my opinion, several rule interpretations in every rule set that absolutely contradict the written rules. But, until a new broom sweeps the floor, that is the interpretation we must use.

Examples; 1) This ruling in the 4 letter sanction with the term-expiring authority. 2) The ruling of this same body that a pitch delivered behind the back is "forward and past the straight line of the body". 3) The NFHS ruling that throwing the ball to 1st on a walk before the BR reaches the base can be a "play" that can be interference. 4) ASA ruling that a glove with a logo or writing that is a different color than the body of the glove is multicolored.

Oh well. None is supported by rule; but we must support them.

I mentioned the other day that rules and their interpretations must be consistent. This ruling or interpretation or complete fabrication is completely inane, and I think everyone knows it. Here's the main problem with the interpretation that the game being a regulation game by rule can be misapplied and this is subject to protest. Say the AC did not come to the umpires. Say the umpires were changing and talking through things and on their own they realized they messed up. They quickly redress and head to the field, only to find no one there or perhaps only one team, or even both teams with a few players missing. They then restart the game based on the same misconception they restarted YOUR game with, and no one protests (perhaps there's no one there TO protest), and either have a forfeit (double-forfeit?) - or someone's playing without their best player or pitcher or whatever.

Sans protest, per your rule inventor's interpretation of the rules, this is simply a more gross misapplication of that very same rule - but just as valid. Double-forfeit stands.

One could stretch this to ridiculous extremes to show how wrong this ruling is. Umpires return the next day and do the same thing. Double forfeit. Yes, this is ridiculous, but so is the initial ruling. How long after leaving the field is too long? 5 more minutes than the initial sitch? 15? An hour? There has to be a line SOMEWHERE. Fortunately, for the rest of the world ... there IS a line - in your rule 6.12.2.

I guess my point is ... the fact that the person making this decision has been put in a position such that her decisions become law does not make her ruling any less wrong. And yes - this ruling is wrong. It is incorrect. This is not grey area or opinion. No amount of authority makes it less wrong. Calling it interpretation does not make it less incorrect.