Skip navigation

NEED HELP?|

5833 Views 47 Replies Latest reply: Aug 18, 2012 2:09 PM by BlueBeak 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
Manny_A Legend 841 posts since
May 25, 2007
Currently Being Moderated

Aug 10, 2012 12:23 PM

Another Protest Gone Wrong!

This one's being discussed on various other boards:

 

?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KZr9BTg_4o

 

The only thing I can think of is that someone didn't give WP all of the details.  Otherwise, I can't believe they got it wrong!

  • Mike_CVUA Legend 593 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Aug 10, 2012 1:05 PM (in response to Manny_A)
    Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Manny:

     

    It was not obvious to me that a protest went to WP.  Looks like, at most, it was a discussion between the PU and the TD--and that's probably not kosher either.

     

    Anyway, it looks like they ruled a PIROOMA because B2 did interfere with the play.

     

    Mike CVUA

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. Aug 10, 2012 2:24 PM (in response to Mike_CVUA)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Manny:

     

    Need some help from you as to what you believe was the wrong call?

     

     

    1)---the batter's interference call on the catcher?

     

    2)-----the baserunner having to return to 1st base?

     

    3)---Or???

     

    I don't believe the protest, per se, went to WP; what they got from WP was a belated affirmation that the rulings/calls made at the venue were correct.

     

    As for the baserunner having to return to 1st base------that is not spelled out in the rulebook---[looking at Rule 6.06(c)--and "The Right Call"].... where both publications  define batter's interference but makes no reference as to how a batter's interference call would impact a baserunner who advanced to a next base during the action at home.

     

    For a batter-runner having to return to last base legally touched once a batter's interference call is made----that IS covered in The RIM.....Instructor's Comments, bottom of page 48.

     

    Frank!

  • BHanlon Pro 82 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Aug 10, 2012 4:34 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    The missed call was that when you have INT by a Batter AFTER he strikes out the runner is called out, you can't penalize the batter as he is already out on the strikeout. If this had happened with 1 strike then the Batter is out and the runner returns, but with the K you penalize by calling the runner out.

     

    I saw it on TV (NESN) and replayed a few times and they did in fact pick up the phone after asking the manager if he wanted to protest. The managers mistake was once he said Yes, I want to protest he walked away looking for, and finding the rule book.

     

    Lesson: If you protest you need to be in on the conversation to make sure they explain it properly. It was a very quick call and a quick ruling and I'm with Manny, they only got half of the story.

     

    No harm in this game, but at a crucual point it could have been a disaster if the runner came around and scored the winning run.

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Aug 11, 2012 5:44 AM (in response to BHanlon)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Brian:

     

    Your explanation makes sense.....but where, in any LL publication, is there a reference/support spelling out making the call as you described?  The Rulebook-- [Rule 6.06(c)]--"The Right Call"---and "The RIM"---offers no help in that regard.

    [possibly I'm not looking at the correct rule]

     

    Also--I think the question went  to the local  Regional rep in attendance at the game--as the Chain of Command calls for--  and then a phone call to WP for the belated affirmation. I do believe I saw Corey Wright, Assistant Eastern Regional Director, in a TV shot, behind the officials enclosure, standing to the right of others seated.

    Sort of bending over, hatless, chewing gum----in one of the last shots of the clip Manny presented.

     

      [Going to the rulebook was no help in that situation.]

     

    "The RIM" does go a bit further, as I noted in my 1st reply, but absent any reference to a 3rd strike on the batter impacting the call on a base-runner.

     

    Frank!

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    5. Aug 11, 2012 9:49 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    At one earlier clip shot, Corey had sunglasses on.

     

    Also noted......at one point after the call was changed from the runner being ruled "out" by a person at the table spoken  to the PU; then that ruling was challenged and changed, correctly---at least by the RIM--- to the runner having to return to 1st base. The term heard spoken from within the officials enclosure was obtaining  a "double check" from WP on the return to 1st base ruling made at the venue.  Looked like it was Corey on the phone to WP, with his sunglasses on. That "double check" term spoken, as it related to the phone call made to WP prompted my comment that WP's reply was a "belated affirmation" of the final ruling made at the venue. 

     

    I agree, that possibly WP did not get "all the details" as Manny and BHanlon said was the case. What they probably got was the batter interfered with the catcher and nothing about it being  the 3rd strike on the batter.

    But what was, and is available in LL print addressing that scenario  Nothing---that I can find!

     

    Lacking any other LL print reference...the final ruling at the venue, i.e. the runner being returned to 1st base  being on the same page as "THE RIM's" Instructor's Comments---absent any other written LL printed verbiage to the contrary.

     

     

    Frank!

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. Aug 12, 2012 8:47 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Frank - because the batter was already out you have to use 7.09(e).

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    7. Aug 12, 2012 11:21 AM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    hmmm, interesting, Rich. Good point for discussion!

     

    IMO--That opens up another "can of worms"-- semantic wise.

     

    By that I mean;  LL Rules Series 6.00 deals with batters.    Rules Series 7.00 deals with runners.

     

    In this thread we are talking about a batter being "out" as a result of a called or swinging 3rd strike, he doesn't become a runner--- the batter's only possible interference call would be his interference with the catcher---as was in the original scenario, this thread.

    As still only a  batter..6.00 series applying!

     

    I'm reading 7.09(e) as applying to a batter, for example, who BECOMES a RUNNER on a fair batted ball; and is either tagged out enroute to 1st base, or "put-out" at 1st base---who then subsequently interferes with a defensive player, say F3, making a throw to F4 on a base-runner-(R1)- enroute to 2nd base.

    As now, a batter becoming a runner..7.00 Series applying!

     

     

    Frank!

  • Mike_CVUA Legend 593 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. Aug 12, 2012 12:04 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    I think what we had was Garden Variety Interference by the Offense, in this case, a player who was already retired.  Thus R1 should be called out.  Whether or not said offensive player happend to have been a batter is moot.

     

    However, my question is how much "intent" do you have to judge?  In the video, there was contact, and F2's throwing motion and his play at 2B were interfered with. Enough to judge intent?  (I think so......)

     

    Mike CVUA

  • Kyle_ Legend 556 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    9. Aug 12, 2012 12:14 PM (in response to Manny_A)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Here's what I saw:

     

    The crew saw INT on the retired batter, and called R1 out. Agree, or disagree with that judgement call, it doesn't matter.

     

    The O manager questioned whether the out was proper.

     

    WP said send the runner back.

     

    Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot on what WP did. You have two choices, Out, or play on. They decided on a new, King Solomon approach.

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. Aug 12, 2012 5:23 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Frank - a batter who becomes a runner is referred to as a "batter-runnner"

     

    7.09(e) says "batter" who has just been put out, not the "batter-runner" who has just been out so is definitely means the poor slob who just struck out.  You can't use rule 6.06 and call the batter out because he's already out. Thus rule 7.09(e) is there because, with the batter out you need to have someone else to call out on the interference - thus the runner.

     

    Stop trying to justify the call. Here and eveywhere else that it's being discussed you are the only one trying to use 6.06

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    11. Aug 13, 2012 7:27 AM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    You wrote and asked that I... "Stop trying to justify the call"

     

    Rich, I will stop trying to justify the call when the powers-that-be governing this board tell me I can't express my opinion on any issue that comes before us. Without differing opinions these boards would be sleep inducers!

     

    If I  am wrong, so be it----wouldn't be the first time!  I am not  the only one using 6.06------are you forgetting the final decision rendered on the issue being in concert with THE RIM's Instructor's Comments under 6.06(e)?    In the past, how often have you, and others, cited the RIM  to support an opinion and/or disputing another's opinion?

     

    Relax, enjoy the multi-dialogue "action"------express your opinion, but don't tell me I can't express mine----good, bad, or indifferent.

    -------------------------------------------------

    One more belated thought---via an edit!

     

    6.O6(e)---SPECIFICALLY mentions, for emphasis,  the interference ACTION involves a BATTER and CATCHER, as in the CASE at hand,----with no printed declared PENALTY "out" on a base-runner being mentioned or assessed.                               The RIM states the only penalty, as a result of the batter's interference with the catcher,  shall be a base-runners return to his last legally acquired base----that legally acquired base being a judgment call!  

     

     

    Frank!

  • Lou_B Community Moderator 1,319 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    13. Aug 13, 2012 7:33 AM (in response to Manny_A)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Put me in the 7.09(e) camp.

    Umpire ruling was correct, batter out on strike 3 and runner out due to interference by the previously retired batter.

     

    Now, if it had been strike 1 or 2 then 6.06 would be the correct basis for the ruling.

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    14. Aug 13, 2012 8:13 AM (in response to Manny_A)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Manny:

     

    In one of my past posts here I did agree, IMO---that WP (probably) did not get all the ALL the details; and opted to suggest that the batter had in fact being  called "out" via a 3rd swinging strike---was part and parcel of that "overlook."

     

    let's say they WERE told ALL the details-----the bigger question, rhetorically, would they have still agreed with the decision made at the venue; i.e. the base-runner being returned to 1st base?   We will never know!

     

    In fact, do we know FOR SURE  that WP was NOT told that the batter had struck out!?!?  ...and  knowing that, still agreed with the local venue,s decision to return  the base-runner to 1st base as opposed to calling him "out." 

     

     

     

    Frank!

1 2 3 4 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...