Tournaments, who have an onsite UIC and TD, should not be charging for protests.

Leagues, who often do not, and who often have coaches who have no clue and would protest anything and everything (including... "I thought she beat the throw and the umpire wouldn't ask his partner" ... yes, I've had to rule on that protest), should charge just enough that only a truly serious protest will get placed (and yes, any league with this policy should refund the protest fee where the protestor is correct).

As a track official I can say I've seen that same issue. At one meet we had 10 instances in which the jury of appeals was brought together to rule on appeals, for a HS conference meet. One coach alone was more than half the appeals. Of the 10, one was a mistake by an official and was upheld. One was a mistale by the coach and was appealed by an oppoent. 8 were tossed out within a minute. Each one delayed the meet though. The next year a protest fee was instituted. Since that happed there have been 3 protests, in 15 years and all were upheld.

Don't misunderstand me... I am not defending the fee; only saying two things:
1. I understand why the fee system exists, and
2. Allowing no protests at all is worse.

A not unusual situation around here is no protests allowed even though there is always a UIC on site. I suppose it is a "keep things moving" rationale, but some clearly wrong rulings happen because of it. This seems to have pretty much displaced (at least in many tournaments) the previous common practice of allowing protests to the UIC and/or TD settled on the field.

Apart from summer tournaments, though, our high school league also does not honor protests against the rulings of the officials in high school athletics.

Part of the problem right there. Just because someone wants to protest something doesn't mean it has to be accepted. There is NOTHING to rule on, it is an invalid protest. You toss it out and move on. What does that cost you, 5 seconds?

Now, if we can just get judges to have the courage to do the same with the half the garbage that enters a courtroom, this country would be better off. :)

Me? Yes - 5 seconds. Them? They stopped the game, had to find someone with my number, call me, get the answer, and resume...

And while this was easy, some were more rules related but still stupid. (Hands part of the bat anyone?) With no fee, there's no reason not to protest ANYTHING they might have dreamed up as being the rule.

Even a small fee stops the ones that the coaches aren't SURE over.

MS, I feel you missed my point. I was not disputing that the crew kicked the call and I'm just as appalled by the fact that he sought out the coach to get another shot in after the game. Going to the dugout, or anywhere else for that matter, for that purpose is unprofessional and totally uncalled for. There is no excuse for any of that.

The general purpose of my comments was to give some constructive feedback on how to handle this situation maybe a wee bit better. Furthermore, my comments actually apply to just about any potentially confrontational conversation that might happen across a wide variety of circumstances. They are merely helpful nuggets to try to avoid escalating the conflict, which almost always prohibits a positive resolution. You can do these things without being PC or compromising your side of the argument.

I think Irish's point is that the umpires on the field had no reason to call the UIC at all.

If I have the situation correct, the conversation should have gone something like this:

Coach: Blue, please ask you partner about that call, my runner was safe.
Umpire: No, it's my call and I made it.
Coach: You won't check with your partner?
Umpire: No.
Coach: I protest. Get the UIC.
Umpire: Coach, that is not protestable. Let's play ball!

Perhaps a bit more than 5 seconds....

I hope that you provided feedback to your umpires post game about what a protestable situation is....

Our HS training specifically says not to tell a coach that a play is not protestable. That's much more defensible since we just note the protest and play on. That said, if I were that coach (and I wouldn't be), I'd continue you're conversation thus:

Coach: You're saying the rule doesn't allow me to protest that.
Umpire: Yes.
Coach: Fine, I protest the ruling that I can't protest.

And frivolous though that protest would be in that case it is in fact a protestable ruling because it's not a judgment.

Consider that you're case could have been
Coach: Blue, please ask you partner about that call, an obstructed runner can't be put out between the obstructed bases.
Umpire: Sure she can
Coach: You won't check with your partner?
Umpire: No.
Coach: I protest. Get the UIC.
Umpire: Coach, that is not protestable. Let's play ball!

And in that case I would be the guy protesting the refusal to let me protest. And then I'd win them both.

What about this protest makes it an invalid protest? The protest would be based on the ignorance of the coach that files the protest, but the purpose of protesting is to ensure the rules are properly applied. If he is under the false belief that the rules require one umpire to check with another in any situation upon the request of a coach, then his protest is that the umpire failed to apply the erroneous rule properly. As we all know there is no such rule, thus the appeal would be denied, but that doesn't make it an invalid appeal.

Invalid appeals are those that don't concern the application of the rules. The biggest example of invalid appeals are those concerning judgement calls. Also falling in that realm are mistakes that are made but have remedies described in the rules (substitution errors, batting out of order) as long as the appropriate remedy is applied.

Sure would be nice to know of which post/appeal you are referring.

Fair point Irish...I was referring to the protest about refusing to check with a partner that MD Longhorn first mentioned. In the ensuing posts, I interpreted both your post and Andy's post as saying this would be an invalid protest.

My point is that if the protest was about the original judgement call, then you are 100% correct - invalid protest (can't protest a judgement call). If, however, the protesting coach believes there is a rule saying one umpire must check with another umpire upon request, then he is protesting a misapplication of the rules. If I'm flat out wrong in this interpretation of what can be protested, please let me know, but this is how I learned it and nobody's ever told me differently.

For the record, I'm in your camp that requiring a fee is dumb. There is a $100 protest fee (returned if the protest is upheld) in my son's league and I've never seen or heard of a coach actually filing a protest because of this fee. Even with rock solid cases, I think most coaches don't know how the protest committee is going to rule on something plus there is the conflict of interest in that the league keeps the $100 if the protest is denied. Not allowing protests at all is just as bad if not worse. My personal feeling is that leagues that have problems with excessive protests should track them by coach using some type of points, penalty and forgiveness system. Such a system might look like this:

Each protest filed (regardless of the outcome): +2 points
Each dropped protest (protesting team wins): -2 points
Each denied protest: +3 point
Each upheld protest: -4 points
Each game without a protest: -1 point
After a coach reaches 15 or 20 points, any additional protests would result in a 1 game suspension unless the protest is upheld (essentially after 3 to 4 denied protests or whatever number sounds appropriate). The 1 game suspension would not reduce the accrued points, so the coach would be in the same position after missing the 1 game. One thing to note about this system is that an upheld protest actually nets a coach -2 points, where as a denied protest results in a +5 for the coach. The reason I had a higher value in favor of the coach for an upheld protest is to place a higher level of responsibility on the umpires for knowing the rules, which we should.

The goal is to maintain the protest process without fear of monetary loss (which is a major deterrent for volunteer coaches) and yet put in place a process to prevent excessive protests. After a couple of denied protests the coach will get a clue and if not, he/she will have to coach every other game. One of the keys to this system is that the right to protest is never eliminated. Any coach could still protest even after the points limit has been reached, so the system doesn't abolish the right to protest. It just allows for reasonable consequences for abusing the right.

What if the umpire thinks it's a judgement call but it's really a rule misinterpretation?

Accept the protest and let the protest handling process do its job. That's why there is a process.

The notion that the umpire can refuse a protest is akin to letting a defendant determine if he's guilty or not.

The protest process is the place to determine the validity. It's their job.

Personally
 

I like the way our Rec League handles protests (we do only allow eligibility protests, not rule application protests, but that's not what I'm talking about.

For our Rec League, the "offended" coach shall notify the umpires prior to the last pitch of the game their intent to protest (again, eligibility only in our league). The umpire will note this on the official game report. The protesting team then has 48 hours (2 business days) to produce the protest fee and file an official protest ($25). If the protest gets upheld, fee is returned (game is a forfeit win for their team).

The same basic system could be used for rec league play on protests (won't work for tourney play).

In Rec League/Travel League play I would prefer the protests to include misapplication of the rules. The same procedure would be used including the 2 business days and the fee. The umpire would be notified at the time of the protest that the team intends to protest. He would then write all information down from the time of the protested play (batter, count, out, lineup, ect). Play would then continue then the coach would have the time to produce the fee and the official protest to the league office.

The league office then could decide on a ruling based on league rules and sponsoring organization rules. If the protest is upheld, they could rule the game replayed from the POI or not to replay it (if it was a 15 run mercy and the protesting team lost, they may choose not to replay).

This type system lessens the frivolous protests, but at the same time still allows for leagues to have a protesting system in place.

Obviously this would not work in tourney play. In tourney play, there has to be onsite protests and timely resolution so the event can continue.

Now with the fee. To be honest I have a problem with very high fees for protests. I think a fee of $25 is fair enough to prevent unwarranted protests, but still allow the real protests to continue.


As a track coach, I was involved in three protests during my career at the state meet ($100 each). We had to protest the disqualification of a relay team for an exchange outside the zone (rule was misapplied, we won that protest), for incorrectly assigning lanes to the semi-finalists in a sprint event (we lost that protest on a technicality-too late). We also had to protest a misapplication of the rules in the shot put, and a mistakenly set up event area (we got screwed on that protest). In all three cases were correct on the ruling. We got an apology letter from the state association on the two that we lost after contacting them when the protest was denied.

I will never have a problem with a coach protesting the misapplication of the rules because I've been on the opposite side, provided it was done in a proper manner.

We don't always agree, but this is EXACTLY what I teach at clinics.

I always pose a pure judgment scenario and then ask what happens if a coach/manager protests. Invariably, someone will say, "They can't protest that."

My response: Sure they can. They can protest anything, including the color of the sky. It's your job to note the protest and, if it's a tournament that requires immediate handling of the protest, to notify the person responsible for moving it along. What's not appropriate is deciding that the coach can't protest.

I also think protest fees are idiotic. Mainly because I've seen protest committees "get it wrong" too. Why should I be out $50 because some random people hearing a protest don't know the rules as well as I do?

I didn't say the umpire should refuse a protest. I encourage umpires to not fear a protest.

My reference is to the UIC or in some cases a protest committee, all who should know immediately whether it is a protestable situation or not and, if not, it is just refused. Like I said, 5 seconds. Okay, maybe 10 :)