MLB Denies Indians Protest

by MikeCP on May 2, 2007 2:32 PM EDT

From MLB.com

"Major League Baseball President and Chief Operating Officer Bob DuPuy has denied the formal protest filed by the Cleveland Indians regarding their game against the Baltimore Orioles on Saturday, April 28th, it was announced today."

Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20070502&content_id=1942297&vke y=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

I didn't think we'd get it - but this is a horrible call. If for no other reason then the precedent it creates.

Great job on dropping the ball, DuPuy.

Currently 1st place in both LGT Fantasy Baseball Leagues.

by mjmarble on May 2, 2007 2:35 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

In related news, MLB has awarded the Baltimore Orioles Game 1 of the ALCS after determining that Jeffrey Maier did in fact reach over the right field fence to catch the ball.

by Ryan on May 2, 2007 2:37 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

And decided that after further review, George Brett DID indeed have too much pine tar on his bat, and have overturned the result of the game

by MikeCP on May 2, 2007 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

You've been sitting on that one for days, haven't you.

Currently 1st place in both LGT Fantasy Baseball Leagues.

by mjmarble on May 2, 2007 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

It's been in the back of my mind, yes.

by Ryan on May 2, 2007 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

It's a shame that we have no way of sending that message to DuPuy, because I can't believe that they've considered the consequences of their actions. Your statement is right on.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on May 2, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Has anyone seen anything posted that contains even a scintilla of rationale supporting the MLB's decision? Neither the press release from MLB nor Hoynes' brief article provide anything even close.

Anyone else find it troubling (in light of the snow days, etc.) if MLB doesn't have to make its rationale (or lack thereof) publicly available?

by mplswahoo on May 2, 2007 2:43 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Ridiculous ruling. The blame for this should be laid more at the feet of the incompetent umpires who made such a hash of this to begin with.

Founding member of Drerikbrady's Ladies.

by Brad D on May 2, 2007 3:05 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Oh really funny Jay. I have heard Erik is pretty cute.

Founding member of Drerikbrady's Ladies.

by Brad D on May 2, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Wait a minute, I have a fan club? COOL!

by drerikbrady on May 2, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Fantastic

by dgcambridge on May 2, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

I just want to post something to see if it says something about Thommy's Mommys below.

by Thommy on May 2, 2007 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Not unless I do something else to antagonize Jay.

Founding member of Drerikbrady's Ladies.

by Brad D on May 2, 2007 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Wait a minute, I have a fan club? COOL!

by drerikbrady on May 2, 2007 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

I'm warming up to the idea of having a consensus assigned signature, if you so desire one. No more of this pick your own nonsense - after all, we're not playing for the name on the back of the jersey.

by Thommy on May 2, 2007 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions

+1!

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 2, 2007 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: +1!

Got big money with someone on post counts or something?

by Joe. on May 2, 2007 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: +1!

A note for new guys and lurkers. What's really hysterical about this is when Joe arrived at LGT, he was known for these huge posts, pages and pages of analysis and argument, with Jay in particular. You've come full circle Joe. I toast you and your weather radio.

Wait a minute, I have a fan club? COOL!

by drerikbrady on May 2, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks! :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 2, 2007 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions

+1 - disagreeing w the ruling, that is!

Hello everyone,

That was supposed to be in reply to fwembt's post above (the ridiculous ruling post, not the antagonizing Jay post. :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 2, 2007 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Not worthy of its own Diary, but keeping with the theme of "bring on the stupid" in this one, Jon Heyman has a really dumb column up on CNNsi.com today. Briefly, he says Cleveland can't possibly keep their players and therefore have a narrow window to win. Apparently he hasn't noticed all the under-25 talent currently locked up on the roster.

by APV on May 2, 2007 4:04 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

In Hoyman's defense, the alarmist verbiage actually is all in the headline and subhead. The actual text of the article is far more mild.

In any event, departing free agents are the big, dumb story that's easy to write. Every good team has stars with contracts that will end two years from now. The uniqueness of the Indians is the way a remarkably solid and near-complete team is locked up for the next five years.

By 2009, C.C. and Hafner would not be more significant losses for these Indians than Randy Johnson and A-Rod were for the 2000 Mariners. We'd rather keep them, but we wouldn't have gaping holes if either one left.

by Jay on May 2, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

I think we are overstating the negative precedential value here. MLB can instruct its umps going forward in whatever way it likes. As I see it, here are two possible takes on the issue from MLB's side:

1. The umpires should not have added the run in the 6th. But given the final score, the game result isn't going to be reversed on protest. MLB can clarify the rule by informing its umpires that in future cases, the run should not be added. And it's not like they have to go through Congress to amend the actual rules.

2. The umpires did the correct thing. Not at the time; obviously the ideal is to make the right call at the right time, but if a mistake can be fixed before the end of the game without changing the number of outs, the mistake should be fixed.

I guess my personal take is still the same - we lost a game we deserved to lose. If we were on the other side, and the protest was upheld, I would be furious. How can you lose a game on a technicality when the rules are vague? No one should be surprised here, we all know how unlikely it is for MLB to uphold a protest, and this isn't the strongest case they've seen.

by dgcambridge on May 2, 2007 4:14 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

We didn't lose on a technicality. The Orioles were at risk of losing on a technicality. We lost by thre runs.

by Jay on May 2, 2007 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Right, that was my point.

by dgcambridge on May 2, 2007 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

You may very well be correct. The problem, however, is that you have provided more speculative rationale than the MLB has provided actual rationale.

Just because MLB doesn't have to go through Congress to clarify a vague rule doesn't mean that there shouldn't be sunlight on the process.

by mplswahoo on May 2, 2007 4:25 PM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

Fair enough.

by dgcambridge on May 2, 2007 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

longer AP article

http://origin.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5802580?nclick_check=1

by palcal on May 3, 2007 1:04 AM EDT reply actions

Re: MLB Denies Indians Protest

From Olney today, MLB's final word:

MLB President Bob DuPuy decided the Indians' protest today. The umpires had misapplied Rule 4.09 in the top of the third inning in a situation in which another run, by Nick Markakis of the Orioles, tagging up after a flyout, should have scored on the inning-ending play, which was not a force play. The umpires later corrected that mistake, which had not involved a judgment call, did not require the reconstruction of an inning and involved only an adjustment to the score. The basis of the Indians' protest was that it was too late for the umpires to make that correction. The decision on the protest, however, cited the fact that the Official Baseball Rules do not address when the umpires can make such a correction in those circumstances. When the Rules do not address a situation, Official Baseball Rule 9.01(c) gives them the discretion to rule on any point not otherwise covered by the Rules. Mindful of their obligation that "the first requisite is to get decisions correctly," as the Rules instruct them, this umpire crew was within the authority that Rule 9.01(c) gave them to correct the game score when they did.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on May 3, 2007 10:53 AM EDT reply actions