Olney: The Protest should be upheld

by Joe. on Apr 30, 2007 1:24 PM EDT Comment 36 comments

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2853843&name=olney_buster&CMP=ILC-INHEAD

Olney agrees that what happened in the Indians' game was completely unfair and the protest should be upheld. He goes on to discuss the dangerous precedent this game would set if the protest was overturned. Umpires would essentially have the power to correct a previous call whenever they felt.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

I hope he's right, but his precedent argument is way too chicken-littleish for my taste.

by Thommy on Apr 30, 2007 1:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

does anyone actually subscribe to ESPN Insider? Is that worth it? I can't stand their website. Anyone have the full text?

by MikeCP on Apr 30, 2007 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

btw, olney states in a chat:

H.J. (Cleveland): The Indians still aren't playing their best baseball, but are in 1st place. Does this mean they have yet to peak and will have a great year, or are they simply lucky so far? After last year, we deserve some luck ...

SportsNation Buster Olney: (1:53 PM ET ) H.J.: That's what I think, and that's part of the reason why I picked them to win the WS. I think they're going to be much better in September than in April, and they are already pretty good in April.

by MikeCP on Apr 30, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

does anyone actually subscribe to ESPN Insider?

Yes

Is that worth it?

Yes

Anyone have the full text?

by mkwng on Apr 30, 2007 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

The fact that some indians fans aren't willing to spend the money to get espn insider is an indicator that the team will be contracted or relocated to another city.

by Brick. on Apr 30, 2007 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

I really hope you're not serious

by MikeCP on Apr 30, 2007 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

You, MikeCP, are wholly responsible for the imminent downfall of this organization.

by Nat on Apr 30, 2007 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Classic. Quote of the week nominee.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Apr 30, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

I believe negative comments like that are the reason that the Indians are having a lousy start to the season, were they to have a lousy start to the season.

Let's hear you Cleveland!

by Thommy on Apr 30, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

That is simply brilliant.

Wait 'til next year... or something like that

by fwembt on Apr 30, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

wonderful.

by MikeCP on Apr 30, 2007 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blown calls ....

... are a part of baseball. This blown call is no different than an ump calling a 2-2 strike (w/2 outs) a ball, with the pitcher giving up the game winner on the very next pitch. Where does MLB draw the line at reversing calls? This will be an interesting decision, regardless of the outcome.

by crazymoloh on Apr 30, 2007 4:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Reading the language of rule 4.19 as a lawyer (which I am), the important language is that the protested ruling "adversely affected the ... team's chances of winning the game." It is the chance of winning that is important. Could someone create a win probability graph to show what the chances of the Indians winning the game would have been without the run having been counted, measured at the time the run was added. The difference at that time between such a graph and the one for the game as played would actually quantify the adverse effect of the ruling on the Indians. formerlylorain

by formerlylorain on Apr 30, 2007 5:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

That's clearly how MLB would be able to deny the protest. As Olney put it, the fallacy of pre-determined outcomes will win the day. They'll say that it's a 3-run game and the extra run won't matter and that it didn't affect the outcome.

The argument is chicken-littlish in a sense, but Olney's concern also strikes me as valid. It's really not that hard to imagine how this game could have ended tied or with the Indians a run behind, where this ruling would have a significant outcome.
And, if the league says this is OK in this situation, it really can't get away with saying that a similar situation would be overruled. it's not that hard to think of something like that happening.

by dave on Apr 30, 2007 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Olney's point about the fallacy of pre-determined outcome (a phrase so poorly worded it hurt me to write) isn't relevant.

They put the run on in the sixth, not in the 8th or 9th, when the starters were both still in the game and when neither manager would have done anything differently in-between the 3rd and 6th (it was only one run and it was only the 6th) Of course, it would be different if it was more than one run (maybe) or if it was put on in the 8th (certainly), but it wasn't.

I think Olney's point is that the the difference in final score (7-4, or whatever it was) isn't the point, and he's right. We should only focus on if allowing that run in the 6th made any difference to us winning or losing the game. Yes, whether or not the run was put on the board affected our chance of winning the game, but that decision was correct. But when it was awarded, in this particular scenario, did not affect our chance of winning the game.

by Thommy on Apr 30, 2007 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

these are interesting comments. i think, however, that they, as well as onley's article, miss the point vis-a-vis rule 4.19.

rule 4.19 permits

by emil minty on Apr 30, 2007 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

sorry. rule 4.19 permits protests where "a manager claims that an umpire's decision is in violation of these rules." we are not protesting the validity of the decision re markakis' run. we are protesting the fact that the umpire made a decision then changed his mind later. unfortunately, that is not a violation of the mlb rules. rule 9, the sections of which govern umpire decision-making conduct, do not prohibit revisiting a decision later in the game. rule 9 allows managers to protest umpire decisions which interpret the mlb rules. while rule 4.19 requires a protest which will later form the basis of a challenge to the game to be made at the time of the decision, nothing in rule 9 dictates when an in-game challenge to an umpire's decision must be made.

i agree that allowing an umpire to make a retroactive decision adding runs to the score after several innings have passed sets a dangerous precedent. i think, though, that this danger is grounds for clarifying the rules, not for a game protest as it is currently defined under 4.19.

by emil minty on Apr 30, 2007 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Let's hope so.

by Thommy on Apr 30, 2007 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

One of the important points of rule 4.19 is that the manager must file the protest before the next pitch or play.

I think the intent of the "adversely affected" language is to prevent the upholding of protests in situations that could lead to runs or when a team was so far behind or ahead at the time of the call that it really did not matter in the end. In other words, the league president can dismiss the protest out of hand.

In this case, the addition of the run made a big difference in the situation of the game, since it was close. Therefore, the league president must address it.

I agree with Olney - This does not set a good precedent for future situations and gives managers the opportunity to argue that they do not need to protest by the next pitch and can seek to get the call corrected for several innings with the expectation that it should be enforced.

by Spidey on Apr 30, 2007 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

The problem with Olney's complaint is that, in this one rare situation, the run-scoring decision had no effect on the sequence of hitters and batters. In all of Olney's oh-no-what-if examples, the whole sequence of the game changes, but not in this instance.

The argument that it may have impacted strategy is going to seem disingenuous, and that why the "adversely affected" part is going to kill the protest.

by Jay on Apr 30, 2007 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Sorry, "hitters and pitchers" of course.

by Jay on Apr 30, 2007 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

If Baltimore had protested at the appropriate time in the third inning, and the protest was upheld afterwards, past practice provides that the game would resume precisely at that point. The Indiands and the Orioles both presumably know this. The umpires belated decision (in the sixth inning) to add a run in the third inning changes that practice, and effectively penalized the Indians by negating game strategy and play by both teams for those innings. Perhaps substitutions would have been made earlier; pitch by pitch decisions might have been different.
The language at the end of 4.19 means exactly as noted: if the score were 14-1 in the last of the ninth, with two outs, and the umpires blew the call, the chances of affecting the result would be miniscule. On the other hand, if the score were tied, and the decision meant a run scored and the game ended, the decision significantly affected the result. Between these two extremes, it is a judgment call whether the result of adding a run, and specifically retroactively, adversely affected the chances of a different result. In these circumstances, I think there was a significant affect on the chances of a different result. That's why the protest should be upheld, and the game should be resumed at the point in the sixth inning immediately before the run was added retroactively. formerlylorain

by formerlylorain on Apr 30, 2007 7:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Too bad the bullpen gave up those runs!

Hello everyone,

I suspect that's how MLB will justify not resuming the game from the bottom of the 6th inning - they'll say that the difference in the game was 3 runs, so it wouldn't have made a difference. Too bad the bullpen had to give up those two extra runs.

However, I believe MLB is on a "slippery slope" when it comes to this decision for the reason Buster Olney mentioned - if umpires are allowed to correct calls later on that were mistakes to begin with, that would set a bad precedent in my opinion. Yes, these types of bad calls aren't made everyday, but still, when they are made, why should they be corrected later on when it's against the rules? As I said in my NFL analogy, that would be like reversing a touchdown call 5 plays later because they decided that the receiver's one foot was out-of-bounds. You can't do that in the NFL, and according to MLB rules, you can't do that here either.

Just because it would be "inconvenient" to resume that game in a season where the Indians and MLB are already "inconvenienced" by 4 snow-outs that need to be made up, doesn't mean that the correct ruling shouldn't be applied. The umpires made a mistake, the Orioles should have protested at that point, which they didn't, the umpires make the final call at that point, and in this case, it was the wrong call, and then you continue with the rest of the game, regardless of whether the call was right or wrong. It's done and over with. You don't reverse the call 3 innings later, which is what the umpires did. That's why this game should be resumed from the bottom of the 6th, but I suspect MLB will come up with the excuse about the run-differential just to avoid having to resume the game when it should be resumed - you can't tell how the game would have been affected with the Indians down 1-run compared to a tie ballgame - there's no realistic way to tell.

That's why that part about "adversely affected the ... team's chances of winning the game" really can't be determined with any degree of certainty - which is why the game should be resumed, and hopefully, it will be.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Apr 30, 2007 7:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Further to the issue, Rule 9.04(c)) provides for consultation by the several umpires if they are in disagreement about one play. The rule provides in part "After consultation, the umpire-in-chief ... shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made. " This contemplates a "final decision", subject to protest (appeal) under rule 4.19. If play has resumed, to reverse a decision made after consultation assumes an appellate function that the umpires do not have; that function is exercised under 4.19 by a different official.
To put it more simply, the umpire's jurisdiction generally is to make rulings immediately as the game progresses. Once a ruling is made and play resumes, he does not have jurisdiction to reverse himself if it will adversely affect a team's chances. I agree that the rules are not explicit on this, but the history of the game suggests that these are basic principles to the sport. formerlylorain

by formerlylorain on Apr 30, 2007 10:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

I have to admit, that's a pretty strong point. The text essentially says that once the umps allow play to resume, there is a presumption of a "final decision" that can only be reviewed under a formal protest.

That speaks directly to the question I posed earlier, i.e., can't the umps just change their minds without any protest? Apparently not.

by Jay on May 1, 2007 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

My thought on that - I don't think there was a disagreement among the umps, I think all the umps missed it. The final ruling was issued not at the end of the 3rd, but instead when the run was issued in the 6th.

by Thommy on May 1, 2007 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

That is precisely the question -- do the umps have the right to make a "new" final ruling once play has resumed? There is apparently no precedent to support their having that right.

by Jay on May 1, 2007 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Here's what I think happend:

The umps didn't score the run.
The inning ended.
A pitch was thrown
Sometime after #3, an Orioles manager scratched his head and talked to an ump.
Confusion ensued
The umps realized the run should have scored
The umps had a decision to either (A) score the run, or (B) not score the run. They chose A. Why? Because if they didn't score the run, they knew that the game would have to be replayed. So they chose to score the run because some chance of not replaying the game is better than no chance.

Anyway, the final ruling thing, I thought, only applied when the umps disagreed. The umps all agreed on missing the call in the third, so that was just a ruling, not a "final ruling" as defined in the section quoted.

Man, I hope they tell us what is going to happen so we can stop pretending like 1) we know what should be done and 2) that what should be done is actually what will be done, as MLB doesn't like to replay games - and that just might rule the day regardless.

by Thommy on May 1, 2007 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

that what should be done is actually what will be done, as MLB doesn't like to replay games - and that just might rule the day regardless.

Unfortunately that's what I think will happen. MLB has had a history of going with the painless option rather than the correct one.

"The Orioles won by three?" they'll say." Good, we don't have to replay it, since everything would have remained the same had the run counted immediately. Those rules are open to interpretation, and we say the game was not affected."

Anything to avoid an inconveinience, I gues. I hope I'm wrong.

by Ryan on May 1, 2007 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could the following happen?

Hello everyone,

I'm starting to wonder if MLB will refuse to resume it, but instead, erase that run off the board and make the final score 6-4 Orioles?

Just a thought. I hope I'm wrong and we do have to resume it - I keep thinking it would be poetic justice for us to reverse that loss after not having the home opener completed, possibly one pitch away from official completion and a win, though I know that Saturday's game and the original home opener getting snowed out have nothing to do with each other and likely won't influence MLB's decision to resume (though I suspect the snow-out could influence their decision to NOT resume the game since we already have four other games to make up already.)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 1, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

You are simplyl mistaken about the "why" in #7 above. The game would not have had to have been replayed, because no formal protest was made before the next inning. No protest after that point can even be recognized, let alone upheld, and everyone knows that.

They did it strictly because they thought it was the correct thing to do, I give them that much credit.

The home plate ump initially ruled "no score" -- he made the ruling, no protest was made, and there was no discussion. If the other umps disagree with the call and later persuade him otherwise, then they can make a different final ruling, but that has to be done in the right timeframe. That is how the rule applies.

All final rulings are based on the umps reaching consensus. What you're suggesting is that if the umps reach consensus quickly enough, and really really agree on the final decision, they can revisit it any time they want. Basically, that as long as they don't disagree initially, they can change rulings at any point in the game.

There is simply nothing in the rules to support that.

by Jay on May 1, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

You certainly may be right, but I'll play antagonist.

There are on-field judgements and off-field rules. On-field judgements (as I'm calling them here) include judgement calls that can't be made off the field or before the game. An example would be whether or not a basestealer touched the base before he was tagged out. Off-field rules include those that aren't open to interpretation, or are the same for any game and remove the human element. An example is how many runs you score when you cross home plate, or how many outs there are in an inning, whatever.

Anyway, I could see a difference in what should be done with issues rising from each type of call, and I think too often in this discussion we're treating the issue as a safe/out or ball/strike umpire call, when it clearly isn't. It simply isn't in the umpires ability to determine whether or not that run scored. To the point: did the fact that it was/wasn't protested even matter?

Again, playing antagonist, I'm not sure I believe myself.

by Thommy on May 1, 2007 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Baseball is a game requiring constant decisions by umpires, ranging from balls and strikes, foul and fair, safe or out, to ejections from the game. Decisions have to be made in order for the game to resume its normal flow. "The game must go on." There is nothing preventing the umpires from consulting amongst themselves or opening the rule book if a question arises (but they cannot consult the videotape). The umpires are given jurisdiction to make decisions, so they can announce "play ball" permitting the game to resume. Once they have made a decision on the situation and play resumes, the situation as it existed is gone. Play cannot resume if the decision is interim, subject to modification. Thus the necessity of a final decision, subject to a formal appeal (protest) for a small set of decisions. It appears, by analogy, that the umpires are subject to the legal doctrine of "functus officio", which means their power to rule on a situation ceases after they have made their "final decision". The men in black continue to rule on new situations as they occur, but they cannot go back and correct a call already made. Baseball (as a business) hopes that the umpires' decision was correct, but it is more important that a decision be made, than the decision be the right one. That's why we, as fans, can second guess the umpires--because we are more concerned with the right call than the business of the game. formerlylorain

by formerlylorain on May 1, 2007 6:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Setting aside the unnecessary legalese, the rule book simply doesn't say anything about whether or not the umpires can revisit their decision. Obviously it doesn't come up often, because many decisions are going to affect the number of outs, and so would be difficult to change later. Jay is right that there is no rule specifying that the ump can change his mind an inning later, but there's nothing against it either.

The term "final decision" has a pretty clear meaning in its context. If ump A says "safe" and ump B says "out", they confer and the umpire-in-chief chooses between them for the "final decision." There were two decisions up in the air, and the ump-in-chief has to choose one. It's a stretch to read the word "final" in that sentence, or in 9.02c, to impose a restriction that an umpire can never revisit any call.

FL's description of how it should work makes sense, and it may flow from baseball tradition, but I can't find it in the rules. Which is why I'd be surprised if we win this protest, given that umpires have authority to rule on anything not in the rule book. (9.01c)

by dgcambridge on May 1, 2007 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

Well it seems pretty clear to me that what should have happened is that umps should have stuck by their call (no run counted), Baltimore should have protested at that time, and the game should have continued. The run should have never been added (unless the umps changed it before the next pitch in the next half inning) and the game should have been played out. Baltimore would have withdrawn the protest since they won the game anyways, and that would have been that, or if the outcome would have somehow changed, their protest would have been upheld and the game started over at the 3rd inning again. This did not happen. The umpires in my opinion screwed this up royally in trying to "do the right thing" at the wrong time.

by hans on May 1, 2007 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Olney: The Protest should be upheld

As I'm sure everyone knows by now, the protest was officially denied, and the final score of 7-4 stands. Naturally, no explanation was provided, because any attempt to explain the process behind the decision would put egg on someone's face. There's no way they can justify it based on the rules, and they know it, but how the game played out is how it should have happened had no mistake happened. They took the same approach used by activist judges: figure out the outcome you want, and then try to find a way to interpret the rules to match that outcome. Only thing is that, unlike the courts, the League Office doesn't have to explain how they came to their ruling.

by mickeyf on May 2, 2007 4:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs