Canada Protests HR vs 2B Runner Placement vs USA After Batted Ball Sticks to Top of Wall

Team Canada filed a protest with WBSC officials after USA batter Triston Casas' fly ball to right field, originally ruled a home run and reversed to a double on replay, resulted in baserunner R1 Logan Forsythe being allowed to score from first base despite Casas' two-base award.

Play: With one out and one on (R1), batter Casas hit a fly ball to deep right center, ruled a home run by 1B Umpire Ramiro Alfaro. Upon Replay Review, the call was overturned to a double, but the Replay Official placed Forsythe at home plate, ruling he would have achieved three bases had the original call been a live ball.

Team Canada protested the game, resulting in a significant delay as WBSC officials and three umpires left the field and returned, denying Canada's protest and ruling that Forsythe would be allowed to score.

Rule: The relevant rule is OBR 5.06(b)(4)(F) which grants runners two bases if a ball "sticks in such fence, scoreboard, shrubbery or vines." The question of what "sticks" means is valid, as is the correct observation that no ball stuck in a fence: it was on top of the wall. For this, we consult the relevant MLB Umpire Manual interpretation, which states, "A fair fly ball striking the top of the outfield wall and remaining on the top of the wall shall be deemed a ground-rule double."

In other words, a ball that comes to rest on top of the wall is deemed a ground-rule double. As long as the ball continues moving, it is live and in play, but when it stops, untouched, it results in two bases.

Related Post: Replay Review, Ground Rules, and Levi's Landing (9/1/17).

Analysis: In the 9th inning, the English-language broadcast communicated a statement purportedly offered by the WBSC regarding the play in which officials purportedly claimed that the ball was still alive by virtue of Canada right fielder Jesse Hodges playing it; had Hodges put his hands up or otherwise not retrieved the ball, the argument goes, it would have resulted in a dead ball, two-base award for all runners.

The broadcast continued, reasoning that the Replay Official awarded R1 Forsythe home plate because had the correct call been made and play not declared dead, Forsythe would not have remained at third base, as replays indicate he did.

Gil's Call: First and foremost, as we'll discuss momentarily in the following section, Replay Review's availability has changed the way stuck/lodged/coming to rest plays are officiated. In Replay games, it does not matter whether the fielder plays the ball or not: the Replay Official can and has determined the ball is dead by virtue of being "stuck" regardless of the fielder's actions after the ball has come to rest.

Second, the logic with USA R1 Forsythe vs Canada F9 Hodges is inconsistent. How come Forsythe gets the benefit of the doubt regarding the dead ball call yet Hodges does not (simply because Hodges' back is turned?)? Forsythe's actions after the umpire declares the ball dead—remaining at third base—are disregarded by the Replay Official, but Hodges' actions in playing the ball (which, again, does not matter in a Replay game when determining whether the ball has come to rest atop the outfield wall) are key to the Replay Official's determination that the ball is live.

Either we disregard everything that happens after the ball became dead—Forsythe's baserunning and Hodges' fielding—or we account for all of it.

Past Practice and Precedent: One additional clue is how MLB began handling the issue of balls sticking in or under outfield fences in the wake of replay's expansion. Umpire Mike DiMuro, in 2016, summed up MLB's historical way of treating potential stuck balls: "Ultimately, the proper ruling must be made by the base umpire who is responsible for the flight of the ball – and it is only possible to do so by running out to the fence to visually discern and confirm that the ball is indeed lodged or stuck. If the fielder dislodges the ball by grabbing it and removing it, then it can no longer be considered lodged or stuck."

In games without replay, this logic still prevails: if an umpire cannot discern whether or not a ball is stuck prior to a fielder playing it, the umpire has little choice but to keep play alive.

However, when MLB adopted expanded replay and made stadium boundary calls reviewable, it changed how this play was officiated via video: the Replay Official was now able to determine that a ball was stuck the moment it came to rest in or under a wall, whether or not the fielder raised their arms or played the ball. For instance, in 2016, we saw a slew of stuck/lodged ball calls via Replay Review, even when the fielder played the ball—or the ball didn't appear "stuck-stuck," but just "at rest" or immobile. Thus, we were treated to MLB's new standard: a ball at the wall that comes to rest in or under (or on top of) said wall is now deemed "stuck."

Related Post: Cause You're Stuck in the Wall - Batted Ball Out of Play (9/20/16).

Video as follows:

Light Failure - An Ump's Play On vs Suspension Call

When lights went out at Busch Stadium during Monday's #Mets-#Cardinals game, HP Umpire Mark Carlson immediately called time before pitcher Alex Reyes' delivery. What is MLB's light failure rule and at what point does a power outage turn into a suspended game? Seeing as a manager filed a protest regarding a light failure situation in the past, it's important to know the rules to determine when to play vs when to call both teams in; even if protests are no longer permitted in MLB, it is important to get the call right the first time.

The protested game occurred on June 22, 2015, when Joe Maddon's Chicago Cubs hosted Don Mattingly's Los Angeles Dodgers. With Clayton Kershaw on the mound in the 6th inning of a one-run game (Cubs leading 2-1), several banks of lights unexpected shut off.

After Maddon left his dugout to question the lighting situation, HP Umpire Jordan Baker met with his Crew Chief Jerry Meals and the umpires ultimately opted to keep playing. Maddon, perhaps in a ploy to ice Kershaw, then argued with Meals before again pleading with Baker to stop playing, even as full power appeared to be restored to Wrigley Field.

Mattingly yelled at Maddon, Maddon yelled at someone on the Dodgers, Kershaw yelled over Andy Fletcher at Maddon, and, ultimately, Maddon filed a protest that the umpires had failed to stop the game due to light failure. Although the Cubs ultimately defeated Los Angeles 4-2 (thus the protest was dropped), we follow the rules to determine that even had LA won the game, the protest would have failed.

Official Baseball Rule 5.12(b)(2) states that "The ball becomes dead when an umpire calls “Time.” The umpire-in-chief shall call “Time"—When light failure makes it difficult or impossible for the umpires to follow the play...Except in the cases stated in paragraphs (2) and (3)(A) of this rule, no umpire shall call “Time” while a play is in progress."

As light failure is 5.12(b)(2), umpires can call "Time" while play is in progress if the light failure criterion applies.

Finally, OBR 7.02(a)(3) states that a game becomes a suspended game (meaning it is preserved at the moment of suspension and must be completed at a future date) if the following occurs: "Light failure, malfunction of, or unintentional operator error in employing, a mechanical or field device or equipment under the control of the home club."

MLB cited this rule 7.02(a)(3) (then known as 4.12(a)) as its basis for upholding a protest for the first time in 28 years when the San Francisco Giants protested in 2014 that the Cubs' ground crew erred in deploying the tarp during a rain delay.

Related Post: Protest Upheld for 1st Time in 28 Yrs in SF-CHC Rainout (8/20/14).

However, for light failure, notice 5.12(b)(2)"s statement, "When light failure makes it difficult or impossible for the umpires to follow the play": not the players, not the managers or coaches, not even the fans...the umpires. Thus, the rule regarding light failure concerns the rare umpire judgment call not based on reading anyone else's mind or intent nor factoring in player safety or anyone else's concerns, but reading one's own ability to see a baseball and follow play; the purest judgment call there is.

Video as follows:

Seconds from Disaster - Protest Upheld as Umpires Reverse Strike 3 Call

Saturday's Mercyhurst University Lakers vs Seton Hill Griffins NCAA baseball game was wiped off the books following a protest after umpires reversed a strike three and batter's interference call to a ball four call, in contravention of NCAA rules, and extending SMU's second inning, leading to the tying and go-ahead runs being scored in a most severe instance of a teachable moment.

To borrow from National Geographic's Seconds from Disaster, disasters don't just happen. They're triggered by a chain of critical events. Unravel the fatal decisions on those final seconds from disaster.

For our Seconds from Disaster analysis of Saturday's game—which, thanks to the upheld protest by the PSAC, was literally removed from the two school's websites—we begin with the play itself.

With one out and one on (R1) in the bottom of the 2nd inning of the MU-SMU game, with MU leading by one run, SMU batter Tyler Peterson took a 3-2 pitch from MU starter Brett Whiteman, called strike three by the home plate umpire as the runner from first base attempted to steal second. The batter appeared to step in front of the catcher as he threw in an attempt to retire the runner and the plate umpire called the batter out for interference, which results in a double play in accordance with NCAA Rule 6-3-b ("The batter interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base...Penalty: If the batter strikes out, the runner is also out").

The following contributed to these Seconds from Disaster. Whether or not the umpires had a reasonable opportunity to control these events—through conscious decision-making as opposed to spur of the moment reaction—is indicated as well.

Event 1) According to the aggrieved coach, the plate umpire purportedly blinked and missed the ball/strike call. Not a controllable decision.

Event 2) After the play, perhaps swayed by the 3B Coach's objection to the calls made, the umpires convened and took the unusual step of reversing not just the interference call, but the strike three call as well: the outcome of the crew consultation was to reverse strike three to ball four and place runners at first and second base with one out, instead of ending the inning. Controllable decision.

Reversing ball/strike calls is prohibited by NCAA Appendix E-1-f: "Judgment calls, which have traditionally not been subject to reversal, include steal and other tag plays (except if the ball is dropped without the umpire’s knowledge, as discussed above); force plays (when the ball is not dropped and foot is not pulled); balls and strikes (other than check swings). This practice shall continue. Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems."

Event 3) In explaining their ruling to MU's head coach, the field umpire engaged with the dugout as opposed to sticking to the head coach for assistance in managing the team's conduct. Controllable decision.

Event 4) Inning drags on thanks to wild pitch, sacrifice fly (scores tying run), and double (scores go-ahead run). Not a controllable decision.

Event 5) MU fielder engages in verbal misconduct with the field umpire, resulting in ejection. Controllable decision.

Event 6) Field umpire ejects then looks back at player, then turns to MU dugout. Controllable decision.

Event 7) Field umpire approaches MU dugout, has further interaction with team personnel. Controllable decision.

Event 8) After inning ends, field umpire picks up plate umpire to approach MU dugout. Controllable decision.

Event 9) Umpires interact with SMU coach instead of proceeding to MU dugout. Controllable decision.

Event 10) SMU pitcher wants to warm up... Not a controllable decision.

Event 11) ...umpires move toward MU dugout and again engage with MU personnel. Controllable decision.

Event 10) SMU wins the game (thus protest is entertained). Not a controllable decision.

As one can see, a handful of events—some controllable and handled properly decisions (green), some handled improperly (red), and some uncontrollable events (neutral, yellow)—contributed to the PSAC's decision to uphold MU's protest and rule that the results of the game will not count. If the teams are able to resume play, the resumed game will begin in the top of the third inning with a 2-1 score (MU leading), as if the umpire's original strike three/batter's interference call had prevailed and NCAA Appendix E-1-f had been properly applied.

Video as follows:

Conforto Chaos - Umpire's HBP on Strike Three

When Mets batter Michael Conforto took one for the team with a walk-off hit-by-pitch in New York to defeat the Miami Marlins, HP Umpire Ron Kulpa's HBP call took on a peculiar meaning after replays indicated the pitch was located within the strike zone and that Kulpa had begun his strike three (looking) mechanic before abruptly reversing course and signaling that Conforto had been hit by the pitch and thus would be awarded first base.

Play: With one out and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th inning of a Marlins-Mets game tied at two, Conforto stepped in for a 1-2 pitch from Miami's Anthony Bass. The pitch, located near the upper inside corner, made contact with Conforto's right elbow.

Call: HP Umpire Kulpa, having initially started to signal strike three, appeared to change his call and communicated that Conforto had been hit by the pitch, awarding Conforto first base as a result, resulting in a Mets win and argument from Marlins Manager Don Mattingly and, potentially a protested game.

Rule: Official Baseball Rule 5.05(b)(2) states that the batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out when—"He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball." Furthermore, "If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched."

Analysis: The first point to note is the pitch was, indeed, located within the strike zone and the baseball appeared to touch the batter while it was located in the strike zone. Accordingly, 5.05(b)(2)(A) applies and renders the judgment relative to whether Conforto attempted to avoid the pitch (or leaned into it) superfluous: as soon as we determine the baseball was in the strike zone when it touched the batter, it doesn't really matter how the batter wound up located in the strike zone: the proper call is a dead ball strike (strike three in this case).

If, however, the umpire ruled the pitch was located outside of the strike zone when it touched the batter, then we must consider how Conforto contorted himself: if Conforto leaned into the pitch (or simply failed to "attempt to avoid being touched"), it would be a dead ball ball and the at-bat would continue with a 2-2 count.

Had Kulpa kept his initial "strike three" call, the outcome of a strikeout would have been correct. By changing to a hit-by-pitch with first base award, the umpire talked himself out of the proper ruling.

Protest: Because judgment calls cannot be protested, the Marlins have but one path to win this protest: If Kulpa maintains that the pitch was located within the strike zone and he awarded Conforto first base even though the baseball was located in the strike zone when it touched Conforto, that would signify an incorrect application of OBR 5.05(b)(2) and, thus, basis for affirming Miami's protest. If, however, Kulpa states that he simply reversed his "strike" call to that of a "ball" by virtue of the pitch being located outside of the strike, then the protest would be denied because pitch location and "did the batter lean into the pitch" decisions are both non-reviewable judgment calls.

After the game, Kulpa spoke with pool reporter Anthony Rieber: "The guy was hit by the pitch in the strike zone. I should have called him out."

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection P1 - Sam Holbrook (3; Dave Martinez)

HP Umpire Sam Holbrook ejected Nationals Manager Dave Martinez (runner's lane interference call; QOCY) in the top of the 7th inning of #Nationals-#Astros #WorldSeries Game 6. With none out and one on (R1), Nats batter Trea Turner hit a 0-0 fastball from Astros pitcher Brad Peacock on the ground to Peacock, who threw to first baseman Yuli Gurriel as Turner arrived, resulting in an interference call and extensive Replay Review as the result of an attempt to protest the game by the Nationals, officially classified as a rules check (RLI is not reviewable), which was disallowed as a result of baseball's longstanding prohibition on protesting judgment calls. Replays indicate Turner failed to run within the three-foot-wide runner's lane the entire distance from the 45-foot mark to first base, while Gurriel failed to catch Peacock's throw as a result of interference from Turner when Gurriel's hand and glove made contact with Turner prior to the ball's arrival at the contact plane, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Nationals were leading, 5-2. The Nationals ultimately won the contest, 7-2.

This is Sam Holbrook (34)'s third ejection of 2019.
Sam Holbrook now has 20 points in the UEFL Standings (15 Prev + 3 MLB-Post + 2 Correct Call = 20).
Crew Chief Gary Cederstrom now has 19 points in Crew Division (18 Previous + 1 QOCY = 19).
*Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11) states, in part, that a batter is out when—"In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead...The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base."
^Official Baseball Rule 7.04 states, in part, "No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire."
There will be further analysis on this play in a subsequent article.

This is the 218th ejection report of 2019, first of the postseason.
This is the 99th Manager ejection of 2019.
This is the 1st World Series ejection since October 26, 1996 (Tim Welke/Bobby Cox [out call]).
This is Washington's 11th ejection of 2019, 1st in the NL East (WAS 11; PHI 10; ATL 8; MIA, NYM 5).
This is Dave Martinez's 5th ejection of 2019, 1st since Sept 8 (Mike Estabrook; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Sam Holbrook's 3rd ejection of 2019, 1st since Sept 25 (Scott Servais; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Washington Nationals vs. Houston Astros (World Series Game 6), 10/29/19 | Video as follows:

Atlantic League's Bench-Clearing Balk Ejections & Protest

The Atlantic League-MLB experimental balk rule requiring pitchers to step off the rubber during pickoffs produced a handful of ejections and protested game after a quasi-bench clearing argument in High Point led to all umpires entertaining multiple complaints from a Rockers team upset about a pickoff play to end the bottom of the 3rd inning of Wednesday night's 5-1 loss to Southern Maryland.

The Play: With two out and one on (R1), Blue Crabs pitcher Daryl Thompson picked off Rockers baserunner Stephen Cardullo at first base to end the inning, ruled out by 1B Umpire Thomas Newsom.

The ALPB Balk Rule: Under the indy league's MLB partnership, baseball's balk rule was modified to require that pitchers disengage the pitcher's plate in order to attempt a pickoff.
Related Post: Atlantic League Debuts New Rules, E-Zone (7/10/19).

Is this is a legal disengagement maneuver?

SIDEBAR: If this league's test rule requires pitchers disengage, and pitcher Thompson has disengaged, the question of whether this is a no-step balk is irrelevant, since Rule 6.02(a)(3) states "it is a balk when—The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base" (bold added for emphasis). The only question is whether Thompson's toe tap with his back/pivot foot while turning his body toward first base constitutes a legal disengagement. I'd surmise that under the "old" rule, this is legal...but what about under the experimental balk rule in the Atlantic League? And is this a judgment call or rules interpretation?

After all, MLB recently deemed that a "toe tap" during delivery is not to be construed as a second step...so how about a "toe tap"-style disengagement of the rubber. Is that to be considered legal pursuant to the ALPB-MLB balk rule experiment as it would under the "old" rule?
Related Post: MLB Rules Gearrin's Toe Tap Legal - Analysis (8/29/19).

Argument, Ejections, and Protest: What followed at BB&T Point Stadium in High Point, North Carolina during the post-inning changeover was what may be the slowest single-squad bench-clearing incident of the season, largely because the team on offense now transitioned to becoming the team on defense, with a detour to argue with the umpiring crew.

Multiple argument and ejections ensue.

High Point's prolonged argument resulted in a nearly-10-minute delay, featured multiple ejections (the box score indicated RF Stephen Cardullo [the picked off runner], CF Jared Mitchell, and P Michael Bowden, but did not list Manager Jamie Keefe, who threw his hat, etc.), and concluded with a protested game.

Cardullo's ejection, specifically, was of the "parting shot" variety, which occurs when a player/coach/manager says one final phrase to the umpire and immediately turns his back to walk away. In general, this phrase is personal, profane, or otherwise excessively unsporting, unacceptable, and ejectable.

The parting shot ejection is an optical illusion.

The optics of the "parting shot" ejection relies on normal human reaction time so that by the time the umpire ejects the offender, it appears the umpire has become the aggressor, or in the High Point broadcaster's words, "He did it with the guy's back turned." It is meant to make the violating party look innocent to the umpire's "overreaction" in ejecting someone who is walking way, never mind what that person said or did just moments earlier.

Later on in the festivities, many of High Point's uniformed personnel converged around the three umpires to argue, resulting in at least three separate and simultaneous discussions that included HP Umpire Larry Rosenberg, 1B Umpire Newsom, and 3B Umpire Lindy Hall.

Although Official Baseball Rule 7.04 explicitly states, "no protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire," whether or not High Point's protest is of the umpires' judgment that pitcher Thompson legally disengaged the rubber in throwing to first base or of the umpires' interpretation of the modified balk rule might be a futile splitting of hairs, at least in this particular organization. After all, the Atlantic League office overturned an umpire's on-field judgment call earlier this season.
Related Post: Atlantic League Overturns Umpire's Judgment Call (7/14/19).

Video as follows:

As Muncy Admits Fakery, Umps Should Be Patient

In the aftermath of HP Umpire Gabe Morales' fateful "Time" call that preceded Yankees runner Gleyber Torres' potential tying score at Dodger Stadium Saturday, Dodgers infielder Max Muncy admitted he faked the extent of his injury, putting the umpire in a vice and reminding all officials to exercise patience when making calls.

To recap, Morales called "Time" as a response to Dodgers pitcher Kenley Jansen's request after a collision between Yankees runner Brett Gardner and Muncy on a force play attempt at second base. Prior to calling "Time," from Morales' angle at home plate, it appeared Yankees runner Torres was walking slowly toward third base with his back to home plate.
Related Post: Morales' Mercy - Dodgers' Key Time Call Against NY (8/24/19).

For this reason, it would have appeared to Morales that the play was over and no further action was possible, making his "Time" call proper, in his judgment, and in accordance with Rule 5.12(b)(8), which states, in part, that, "no umpire shall call 'Time' while a play is in progress."

Unfortunately for Morales and New York, the play may not have been as complete as first thought, as Torres broke for home plate a split second after Morales' decision to call "Time." Remember, a play is generally not complete until “no further action is possible.” Accordingly a good exercise for an umpire considering whether to call for time or not is to ask whether further action is possible.

First and foremost, umpires should be patient.

What Lesson Can We Learn? In a word, it's "Patience." An umpire should take his or her time to process the entire situation to deem that the play has truly concluded and no further action is possible. Timing is a huge buzz word in umpiring, and there is a certain timing to calling "Time" at the conclusion of a play.

As callous as it may sound, umpires shouldn't "be nice" and stop the game for a hurt infielder. There's a colloquialism that holds umpires should refrain from calling "Time" after every consequential play, and certainly should never think of calling "Time" just because a player falls to the ground. First, it's not permitted in the rules until a play is complete, and second, leniency when not supported by rule leads to con artistry, such as Muncy's soccer-esque flopping and flailing. And if there's one thing an umpire doesn't like more than missing a call, it's being duped by a malfeasant player.

Will the Yankees seek to police the game themselves via a bean ball aimed at the embellishment-minded Muncy? Only time will tell.

A protest must be lodged immediately.

Finally, we have our 10% Boone moment of the day, as Aaron Boone when asked about the play after the game stated that his team might seek to protest the game as a remedy for Morales' quick trigger. Unfortunately, such a protest would be doomed to failure, as Rule 7.04 Comment, regarding protests, clearly states that a protest doesn't apply to judgment calls and, more to the point, must be filed immediately upon the conclusion of the play-to-be-protested. Accordingly, we probably won’t see a bona fide protest, just a complaint about a premature “Time” call.

Morales' judgment call here was that the play was over when he called "Time." If, instead, Morales called "Time" with knowledge that the play was not yet over, that would be a rules interpretation issue subject to protest...albeit, Boone's protest statute of limitations had long run out by the time New York ultimately lost to LA.

Gil's Call: In conclusion, managers can't afford to be patient when it comes to filing a protest, but an umpire better be patient when it comes to calling timeout. This ensures the requesting team doesn't receive an unfair advantage by a premature call not in accordance with the rules (e.g., calling "Time" while the runners are running the bases and/or the defense is not in position to hold runners at their present locations). "Don't be nice, call the rulebook."

Video as follows:

Red Sox Protest Rays' Pitcher Substitution, DH Termination

Boston Red Sox Manager Alex Cora protested Rays skipper Kevin Cash's pitcher substitution and designated hitter termination in Tampa Bay, bringing Chief Angel Hernandez and his umpire crew together for a lengthy delay upon which the umpires ultimately ruled the DH transaction legal.

For reasons we will discuss below, the umpires did get this play right: we will read Cora's assertion that two pitchers may not be on the field while a DH is in the dugout, but we will also explain that no such rule exists as that alluded to by Cora, and that Tampa did not illegally keep a DH if for no other reason than Tampa was the defensive team and did not have a chance to bat prior to Cora's protest.

We will discuss what rules are involved and what moves were made. Turn your Official Baseball Rules books to Rules 5.10 (Substitution), 5.11 (The Designated Hitter), and 6.03 (Batting Out of Turn).

Atlantic League Overturns Umpire's Judgment Call

The Atlantic League made more baseball history by overturning an on-field judgment call, reversing HP Umpire Steve Leonardo's out call on a game-ending play at the plate following protest from the Somerset Patriots to the league office after the game. Despite Official Baseball Rule 7.04's prohibition of judgment call protests, the league ordered the Somerset Patriots and New Britain Bees to resume from the time of the reversed call.

The Patriots argue to no avail after the out call.

The Play: With two out and none on in the bottom of the 9th inning of Saturday's Bees-Patriots game in Somerset, Patriots batter Ramon Flores hit a fly ball off the wall and attempted to score on an inside-the-park home run as Bees catcher Logan Moore attempted to field second baseman Jonathan Galvez's throw. Ruled out for the third and final out of the night by HP Umpire Leonardo, replays indicate catcher Moore had dropped the ball.

Protest: With Replay Review not in use in the Atlantic League, the game ended and the Somerset Patriots appealed to the league office for intervention. Despite Official Baseball Rule 7.04, which plainly states, "No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire," the Atlantic League affirmed Somerset's complaint and ordered the game replayed from the point of interruption: Flores' run shall count and the game is resumed in the bottom of the 9th inning with the score tied at 7.

An umpire called an out on this play.

SIDEBAR: This should go without saying, but it's always good to say it. OBR's General Instructions to Umpires states, "Keep your eye everlastingly on the ball while it is in play." When it comes to an out call, the old adage of "show me the ball," although not always practical in the modern baseball environment, nonetheless carries a wise lesson. Patience is key on big plays such as a potential game-tying out/safe call at home plate with two outs in the ninth inning.

The final sentence of this instruction states it best: "Watch out for dropped balls after you have called a man out." For more on this lesson of glove-and-ball tricks—and this is where Todd Frazier's reputation precedes him, as Frazier duped 3B Umpire Mark Wegner into calling an out on a play wherein the batted ball fell into the stands—see the following related post.
Related Post: Replay Rewind - Hollywood Magic at Dodger Stadium (9/5/18).

Loose ball on the ground after the out call.

Gil's Call: This is more publicity for the Atlantic League, although this too (and overruling an umpire's judgment is not one of the announced rules changes in the ALPB) opens the box to controversy. Although this out call was clearly erroneous as the catcher very clearly appeared to drop the baseball in his tag attempt, where do we draw the line in overturning on-field judgment?

HYPOTHETICAL: For instance, what if the umpire's call here was incidentally correct because the runner had actively swiped at the catcher's glove and committed interference in order to knock the ball loose? In other words, what if the umpire called the runner out on the tag—an objectively incorrect call—but nonetheless got the call correct because of interference that went undetected?

A-Rod swipes at Arroyo's glove in 2004.

In Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series, Yankees batter Alex Rodriguez was ruled safe by 1B Umpire Randy Marsh on a play at first base. After consultation with HP Umpire Joe West, the call was changed to "out" due to interference, as replays indicate that Rodriguez appeared to swat at Red Sox pitcher Bronson Arroyo's glove, causing the ball to come loose.

It's sometimes helpful to use extremely clear and extreme examples such as A-Rod's 2004 ALCS interfering swipe to illustrate concepts, as generally, most controversial decisions on a baseball field involve plays which are not so obvious and much more difficult to officiate.

High schools have learned their lessons.

With Replay Review, a lengthy list of regulations and procedures govern how plays are to be examined and adjudicated in real-time. In leagues without video instant replay, and in the case of post-game judgment call protests, the process becomes significantly muddier, especially with OBR 7.04's statement that prohibits judgment call reviews. How far is too far and what is and isn't reviewable via post-game league office intervention?

Real Life Example: High schools are finding out. Whereas the New York State Association of Independent Schools (NYSAIS) in 2018 declined to intervene in a basketball game following a protest of a scoring error, the Georgia High School Association (GHSA) made a name for itself after affirming a grainier judgment call protest in baseball.
Related Post: NY State Federation Dismisses HS Basketball Protest (3/27/18).
Related Post: Dangerous Precedent - GHSA Overturns Judgment Call (5/22/17).

After GHSA opened the door to judgment call protests, member schools began calling the association with complaints, culminating in the GHSA Board's decision to amend its bylaws so as to bar future protests based on judgment calls, following an appeal filed by the Peach County HS football team regarding a side judge's alleged error.
Related Post: GHSA Amends Bylaws to Exclude Judgment Calls (12/20/17).

The aforementioned portrays the potential complications for plays of this nature, and a league which violates the rules of professional baseball in OBR 7.04 in order to right an immediate wrong without thinking of greater implications and consequences places itself in jeopardy of going the way of GHSA.

SIDEBAR: For this reason alone, Bud Selig's decision in declining to overturn Jim Joyce's out call in the Armando Galarraga imperfect game was a procedurally proper ruling. MLB obviously put into place Replay Review afterward, but at the time, there was no rules-legal recourse for reviewing such an out/safe judgment call, and it is still illegal and in conflict with the Official Baseball Rules to entertainment a protest based on a judgment call after the game.

Video as follows:

Cubs Drop Maddon's Doomed Judgment Call Protest

Cubs Manager Joe Maddon dropped his protest filed Saturday night concerning Nationals pitcher Sean Doolittle's toe-tap delivery. As we wrote at the time, Chicago's protest was doomed to fail, for Maddon's assertion that HP Umpire Sam Holbrook's judgment call that Doolittle's move was not a "second step" toward home plate is not a formally reviewable offense.

Chicago's decision to drop the protest, thus, is a logical outcome meant to preempt an otherwise-inevitable MLB decision that would have denied the club's charge.

Said Maddon, "I still don't agree with the conclusion because I think it's exactly what Carl [Edwards] did, only a different version of it."

The difference, as we illustrated in a comparison of the Doolittle and Edwards deliveries as part of our initial report on the protested game, was that Doolittle's free foot "grazed" the dirt while Edwards definitively stepped with his free foot, stopping his motion, before restarting by picking up that free foot and stepping a second time to deliver the pitch.
Related Post: Maddon Protests Game Over Pitcher's Toe-Tap (5/18/19).

The rule upon which Chicago's withdrawn protest was based is 5.07(a), which states: "The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is a runner, or runners, on base it is a balk under Rule 6.02(a); if the bases are unoccupied it is an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b)."

Said ESPN broadcaster Jessica Mendoza in comparing Edwards and Doolittle's motions: "Look at Carl Edwards, Jr. He clearly steps, places his entire foot down on the ground. This is why he was called for it as being illegal. Then Sean Doolittle last night, it's like he barely nicks the ground. Very different and that's why the umpires did not agree that it was something illegal...what is a step? Clearly Carl Edwards, Jr.—boom—planted: step. Doolittle? I mean he flicks some dirt."

Added Alex Rodriguez: "The way I came up playing the game in the big leagues: any tap is fine, and that's what Doolittle does. If you look at what Edwards does, it's a full-foot plant, and that's not legal."

Video as follows:

Maddon Protests Game Over Pitcher's Toe-Tap

Cubs Manager Joe Maddon protested Saturday's Cubs-Nationals game, asserting HP Umpire Sam Holbrook's crew failed to apply Official Baseball Rule 5.07(a) Comment to Nationals pitcher Sean Doolittle, alleging that Doolittle took a prohibited second step during his delivery, and that the umpires failed to call an illegal pitch, as in 6.02(b).

Unfortunately for Maddon, this protest is built on shaky ground.

The Play: With one out and none on, Maddon observed that Doolittle, during his delivery, tapped the ground with his free foot before lifting his leg and retouching the ground further down the pitcher's mound as he released the ball.

The Rule: Official Baseball Rule 5.07(a) Comment states, "The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is a runner, or runners, on base it is a balk under Rule 6.02(a); if the bases are unoccupied it is an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b)."

OBR 5.07(a) outlaws a second step to home.

Precedent: Earlier in the week, on Monday, Crew Chief Fieldin Culbreth initiated a Replay Review/Rules Check in Seattle after HP Umpire DJ Reyburn instructed Mariners pitcher Cory Gearrin not to step twice via a double-tap of his free foot during delivery to home plate.

That game too went to Replay HQ for a Rules Check, upon which Reyburn's instruction prevailed and Gearrin modified his delivery to only take one step with his free foot toward home plate, so as to comply with OBR 5.07(a).
Related Post: SEA Replay - Cubby's Pitching Motion Rules Check (3/14/19).

Lentz, Wolf, Holbrook & Iassogna confer.

Saturday's Cubs-Nats Game: Maddon must have been paying attention to Monday's game in Seattle, for he attempted to get Holbrook to enforce the same rule Reyburn addressed in his AL game. Maddon then formally protested Doolittle's first pitch to Cubs batter Kyle Schwarber, ruled a ball by Holbrook.

After Rules Check at Nationals Park, Doolittle's delivery was declared legal and Holbrook signaled the game under protest.

Video Replay: Replays indicate Doolittle's free foot made contact with the mound dirt twice during his delivery.

Analysis: The first item to note is that the pitch Maddon protested from Doolittle to Schwarber was ruled "ball one." Assuming theoretically that Doolittle's delivery violated OBR 5.07(a), the penalty for an illegal pitch with no runners on base is a ball. The outcome of the pitch in question was a ball.

The second item to note is that Maddon, in postgame comments, stated that Holbrook told him, "in our judgment..." and further stated, "I don't know how many he made that were illegal pitches."

Setting aside Maddon's admission that he didn't know how many illegal pitches purportedly occurred, Holbrook responded to Maddon's initial allegation thusly: "He thought he was tapping his foot, which in itself is not illegal, and this all kind of stems from his pitcher being called on something that was a little bit different than what Doolittle was doing. So in our judgment, Doolittle did nothing illegal at all."

Carl Edwards' second step was very obvious.

Holbrook is referring to Cubs pitcher Carl Edwards, who was caught taking a definitive second step toward home plate during delivery in Spring Training and told to stop. In Holbrook's judgment, Doolittle's maneuver did not constitute a second step toward home, as Edwards' motion had.

As we've written many times, judgment calls cannot be protested. If Holbrook and crew judged that Doolittle did not take a violative second step toward home plate in his delivery, that judgment cannot be protested. It may be correct, incorrect, or any variation thereof...but it is not subject to protest and "pitching motion/balk/illegal pitch" is not a reviewable call.

When Would Maddon's Protest Be Valid? Had Holbrook stated that Doolittle took a second step toward home plate, and that "in his judgment" this second step was legal, then Maddon would have a valid basis for protest because the rule clearly states that a second step is illegal. If the umpire acknowledges a second step has occurred, the penalty of illegal pitch (or balk with runners aboard) must be enforced. If the umpire states a second step has not occurred, that is a judgment call not subject to protest.

Gil's Call: As it stands, if Holbrook's contention is that Doolittle did not take a second step toward home plate—in spite of Maddon's toe-tap allegation, which is not a rule in and of itself—is the prevailing piece of the pie and, for this reason, Maddon's protest should be denied.

The only way this protest is affirmed is if Holbrook admits that in his judgment Doolittle took a second step during delivery, for under this scenario, Doolittle's move would be a clear rules violation. Without this precise ruling and admission from the umpires, the protest is dead on arrival.

Video as follows:

O's Lodge Protest Over Runners Passing Rule Application

Baltimore filed the first protest of the 2018 season Friday night after umpires declined to rule a double play on an odd rundown play during the Orioles-Yankees game that saw New York's lead runner, Giancarlo Stanton, retreat past third base and into left field as teammate and trail baserunner Gary Sanchez stood on the bag itself.

Meals, Kulpa, Hickox & May listen to Buck.

The Play: With one out and two on (R1, R3), Yankees batter Neil Walker hit a ground ball to Orioles pitcher Richard Bleier, who threw to third baseman Tim Beckham, to catcher Caleb Joseph, as baserunner R3 Stanton became trapped in a rundown between third and home. As Joseph ran Stanton back to third base, trail baserunner R1 Sanchez advanced to third, stepping onto the base with his right foot. With R1 Sanchez standing on third base—and even appearing to motion Stanton to stop—R3 Stanton continued his retreat, running straight through third base and up the left field line before veering into foul territory. Catcher Joseph first tagged Sanchez on third base as Stanton ran into left field before giving chase to, and tagging, Stanton as well.

U3 Kulpa observes F2 Joseph's chase of R3.

The Call: 3B Umpire Ron Kulpa gave no signal when catcher Joseph tagged R1 Sanchez while Sanchez was in contact with third base, and ruled R3 Stanton out when Joseph tagged him beyond the base in foul territory. Upon consultation with HP Umpire Ed Hickox, 1B Umpire and Crew Chief Jerry Meals, and 2B Umpire Ben May, Kulpa's ruling stood and Stanton was declared out, Sanchez "safe" at third base, and batter-runner Walker aboard safely at first.

Orioles Manager Buck Showalter filed a protest as a result of the ruling, but because Baltimore ultimately won the game in extra innings, Showalter's protest is effectively retracted and the result final. Had Baltimore lost, here's how Showalter's protest may have turned out...

MLB rules expert Marazzi is on the phone.

Analysis: The first bit of analysis is to applaud YES Network for calling Rich Marazzi and putting him on air. As Rich surmises, the proper outcome is a double play...but why is that? After all, when R1 Sanchez was tagged, 1) he was on the base and 2) Stanton was not.

What Went Right: Kulpa properly did not call R1 Sanchez out on the tag, and properly called R3 Stanton out on Joseph's tag, but this is where Quality of Correctness falls below the Mendoza line.

What Went Wrong: When R3 Stanton retreated past third base while R1 Sanchez was in contact with the base, he caused R1 Sanchez to commit the offense of passing a preceding runner. Thus, while Sanchez was not out as a result of Joseph's tag, he was out for passing Stanton, even though Stanton looked to have caused the situation (it is the trailing runner's responsibility not to pass a preceding runner). The relevant rule is OBR 5.09(b)(9): "Any runner is out when: He passes a preceding runner before such runner is out."

R1 is legal because R2 never retreated past 2B.

When it comes to a trailing runner passing a preceding (lead) runner between the bases, baseball generally requires one runner's body to physically pass the other's—for instance, runners are allowed to touch each other without consequence, for this is not considered "passing."

When it comes to a potential runners passing situation at the base, we consider an MLB Umpire Manual interpretation, which states, "A runner is considered to have passed a base if he has both feet on the ground beyond the back edge of the base or beyond the edge of the base in the direction to which he is advancing."

Diagram of when a runner has passed a base.

Though this base passing interpretation ordinarily applies to forward progress as runners advance, it is also applicable to retreating runners. This most often occurs during fly out/tag-up situations, where an existing baserunner (e.g., R1), generally running on the pitch, runs past a base, only to return to his base of origin in order to tag up on the caught fly ball. In this case, determining whether the baserunner is past or prior is vital to see if the runner must legally retouch the leading base he may have passed (e.g., for the R1-running-on-the-pitch fly-out play, this would be second base).
Related Post: Rare Real-Time Appeal Retires Runner over Retouch Rule (6/15/17).
Related Post: Past or Prior - Deciding When a Runner Has Passed a Base (7/1/17).

Put it all together and you get Rule 5.09(b)(9) Comment, which is actually an approved ruling, or case play, that the Playing Rules Committee inserted into the rules book, and is precisely what Rich refers to when he says, "the new rule":

PLAY—Runners on second base and third base with one out. The runner from third base (i.e., the lead runner) makes an advance toward home and is caught in a rundown between third base and home plate. Believing the lead runner will be tagged out, the runner at second base (i.e., the trailing runner) advances to third base. Before being tagged, the lead runner runs back to and beyond third base toward left field. At this time, the trailing runner has passed the lead runner as a result of the lead runner’s actions. As a result, the trailing runner is out and third base is unoccupied. The lead runner is entitled to third base if he returns to touch it before he is out, see Rule 5.06(a)(1), unless he is declared out for abandoning the bases.

Suffice it to say, 🚨this is exactly what happened🚨. Lead runner R3 Stanton retreated toward third as trailing runner R1 Sanchez advanced to third base. Before being tagged, R3 Stanton ran back to and beyond third base toward left field, thus running through the past/prior barrier, as depicted above. By rule, R1 Sanchez passed Stanton as a result of Stanton's actions, meaning, R1 Sanchez is out and R3 Stanton is entitled to third base if he returns before he is out...except that fielder Joseph tagged Stanton while off his base, meaning that both baserunners were out.

As for abandonment, let's be clear. U3 Kulpa ruled Stanton out on the tag. Abandonment isn't at issue.

Showalter argues his point to no avail.

Long story short, this double play was missed, may have resulted in an affirmed protest if Baltimore lost the game ("may have," because New York failed to score in the 6th inning, so MLB could have ruled that the incorrect rules application did not affect the outcome of the game), and, had there been an ejection, would have resulted in a QOC of "Incorrect."

It's rare that an MLB game is protested, and it's almost unheard of to have a protest with merit. The last upheld protest—in 2014—concerned a grounds crew that botched its unfurling of a tarp during a Chicago rain delay, and this followed 28 years of no protest having been upheld across the major leagues. What's more, the 2014 protest had absolutely nothing to do with a rules application regarding actual gameplay: it was a rain delay and the decision of suspension vs. calling the game as final. MLB even acknowledged its rain delay tarpaulin rules were deficient and changed the applicable rule during the ensuing offseason. Not so much here, as Rule 5.09(b)(9) Comment fits the Stanton/Sanchez play to a T: MLB won't have to change any rule to account for Friday night's play.
Related Post: Protest Upheld for 1st Time in 28 Yrs in SF-CHC Rainout (8/20/14).

MLB punished Culbreth's crew for its mistake.

The last meritorious MLB protest concerning a bungled gameplay rule occurred in 2013 when Angels Manager Mike Scioscia alleged that Crew Chief Fieldin Culbreth and umpires Brian O'Nora, Bill Welke, and Adrian Johnson failed to enforce then-Rule 3.05 (now 5.10(g)), which requires a substitute pitcher to pitch to the batter then at bat or any substitute batter before that pitcher is removed from the game. Culbreth's crew had allowed Astros Manager Bo Porter to replace his just-into-the-game substitute pitcher in response to Scioscia's decision to bring in a pinch hitter, without that pitcher having thrown a single pitch. Faced with a less desirable pitcher on the mound, Anaheim's Los Angeles' batter flew out to end the inning.
Related Post: Angels Protest After Wright Exits Without Throwing a Pitch (5/9/13).

As the Orioles ultimately won Friday's game in New York, the Angels won 2013's game in Houston, meaning that Scioscia's protest was effectively dropped. Nonetheless, MLB publicly punished the umpiring crew for the rules misapplication, suspending Fieldin Culbreth and fining O'Nora, Welke, and Johnson, for failing to apply a rule.
Related Post: Culbreth Suspended; Johnson, Welke & O'Nora Fined for Pitching Change Fiasco (5/11/13).

Will Meals, Kulpa, Hickox, and May suffer a similar fate for their collective rules error? Stay tuned.

Sidebar: Had both runners been tagged while simultaneously occupying third base, lead runner R3 Stanton would be safe and trail R1 Sanchez would be out.
Related Post: Right of Return - When Two Runners Occupy One Base (4/3/18).

Videos (2x) as follows:

NY State Federation Dismisses HS Basketball Protest

In the latest case of a high school sports team protesting an in-game ruling, the New York State Federation dismissed Long Island Lutheran boys basketball's protest over an excessive timeout technical foul call during the team's Class AA semifinal loss to Archbishop Stepinac; LuHi had alleged that a scorekeeping error caused the technical to occur because the official scorer allegedly charged LuHi with a timeout taken by Stepinac earlier in the game so that it appeared LuHi had used more time outs than it, in fact, had.

NY's decision reflects and supports the general NFHS philosophy that outlaws protests, and runs in stark contrast to the purportedly rogue Georgia High School Association's repeated decisions to entertain protests and appeals, though the NYSAIS decision did not pertain to a judgment call as GHSA's did.
Related Post: Dangerous Precedent - GHSA Overturns Judgment Call (5/22/17).
Related Post: GHSA Affirms Basketball Protest, Orders Replay (1/24/18).

The alleged fifth timeout call—which the official book said was the team's sixth [one more than allowed]—occurred with 8.3 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter and the score tied at 72. After converting both technical free throws, and then two more, Stepinac won the contest, 76-72.

In denying LuHi's protest, the NYSAIS stated that it cannot overturn a clerical mistake. Surmised LuHi athletic director Todd Huebner, "The officials followed protocol, and even though they acknowledged a clerical mistake was made by a person on the book, our protest was not upheld."

GHSA Affirms Basketball Protest, Orders Replay

Having already entertained protests in two sports (baseball - affirmed; football - denied), the Georgia High School Association brought its Board full circle, hearing a protest in its third-straight season as the GHSA overturned a basketball game result based on a misapplication of the rules.

Related Post: Dangerous Precedent - GHSA Overturns Judgment Call (5/22/17 - Baseball Decision).
Related Post: GHSA Amends Bylaws to Exclude Judgment Calls (12/20/17 - Football Decision).

GHSA has heard 3 protests in last 3 seasons.

Unlike the baseball and football plays, however, the most recent basketball case features a protest based on a rule interpretation issue, as opposed to a judgment call.

With nary one second remaining in the fourth quarter and Discovery High School leading Collins Hill 45-44, Collins Hill prepared to throw the ball in along the far end-line. After a throw-in violation, Discovery received a throw-in at the spot, upon which an inbounds Discovery player punched the throw-in pass toward the goal, and away from opposing Collins Hill players, prompting a whistle (it is illegal to punch or strike the ball with a fist).

After a conference, officials ruled a technical foul against Discovery, awarded Collins Hill two free throws (which they made), and the game concluded thereafter with Collins Hill winning, 46-45.

NFHS Rule 9-4 prohibits a player from striking the ball with a fist, and its penalty states, "The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation."

In affirming Discovery's appeal, the GHSA determined Rule 9-4 had been misapplied and ordered the game replayed from the point of protest (with Discovery leading 45-44):

Since this was NOT a ‘judgment call’ but a clear misapplication of a rule, play shall be resumed at the point of interruption when the violation occurred. It will be the responsibility of the two schools to determine when/where the resumption of play will take place and communicate that information with the local officials association and myself. Additionally, there shall be no added expense for officials assigned to finish the game in question.

NFHS Basketball does not recognize protests.

GHSA's decision to replay the Discovery-Collins Hill game angered Peach County, the football team whose December protest was turned down. Though GHSA officials made clear that January's basketball protest concerned a misapplication of rules and December's football controversy dealt with a judgment call, Peach County superintendent Dr. Daryl Fineran wasn't buying it: "This [Discovery] is a Gwinnett County school, and Gwinnett County wags the tail. It's the money, the socioeconomics...I told them that's ridiculous."

Added GHSA executive director Robin Hines, "We had the opportunity to make that right and correct that misapplication of the rules. That’s well within the NFHS (national federation) rules."

Except it isn't. NFHS Basketball Rule 5-4-2 states, "The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee does not recognize protests."

GHSA Amends Bylaws to Exclude Judgment Calls

In the offseason following the Georgia High School Association's decision to overturn an on-field umpire's judgment call, the GHSA amended its Bylaws to address similar future complaints, such as this month's appeal from Peach County HS concerning a football official's incomplete pass ruling in the fourth quarter of a State championship game.

Officially speaking, the GHSA took no action when Peach County head coach Chad Campbell presented his argument in front of the GHSA Board of Trustees on Monday, despite the same Board of Trustees' ruling in the Lee County case.
Related Post: Precedent Set, Georgia Faces 2nd Judgment Call Protest (12/11/17).

The GHSA has reversed its appeal stance.
Photo: Nancy Stahl, NYTimes

Instead, newly installed GHSA Executive Director Robert Hines demurred, "[We aren't] here to talk about the call...judgment calls made by contest officials are not reviewable or reversible." Meanwhile, GHSA attorney Alan Connell—the same lawyer who ruled in May that Lee County baseball could appeal a judgment call—confirmed that Monday's meeting was informational and would not overturn the in-game ruling.

Gil's Call: In making no call and having no comment on the play, the GHSA finally made the right decision and Campbell is arguing straight from the scapegoating playbook.

In regards to the issue of not reviewing judgment calls, consider this argument from the other side (not to mention the argument that the receiver may have illegally participated by stepping out of bounds prior to the pass): "So are the peach county (sic) folks just disregarding the fact that the refs missed a fumble call in the same series of downs that gave them the opportunity to even have this play?"

A side judge signals the pass play incomplete.

Prevailing logic would dictate that if the fourth down judgment call were to be deemed reviewable, this earlier alleged non-fumble would also be looked at...and who knows how many plays prior to that would have to be considered.

In regards to the scapegoat issue, Campbell, in an interview with ESPN's Bill Shanks, stated, "We've had some bad crews this postseason and, um, you know, it so happened the worst crew were (sic) the ones we saw on the most extravagant stage of them all and viewed and watched by millions of people across the United States and the world."

Campbell then proceeded to admonish the entire crew, identified the white hat—by name—and aired some grievances about the referee, saying that he had officiated a previous state championship where another team "got hosed...how he got to be on another championship crew is beyond my belief."

The National Federation of State High School Association (NFHS)'s Coaches Code of Ethics states, "The coach shall strive to set an example of the highest ethical and moral conduct...Public criticism of officials or players is unethical."

Oh well.
Related Post: Gil's Call: The Blame Game (Umpire Scapegoating) (8/8/14).

Coach Campbell, who was seeking to reverse the incomplete pass ruling, presented several opinionated arguments, stating that the side judge who made the call was out of position and "had the worst view of them all," that the crew failed to discuss the call after it was made, and concluded with the accusation, "Not one time—not for one second—did they try to get this call right."

Following his appeal, Campbell presented the Board with the non sequitur argument that he was not protesting a judgment call, but a rules interpretation. That statement wasn't a fluke; Campbell doubled down and reiterated that he was not protesting a judgment call in his interview with Shanks.

However, the report failed to specify which rule Campbell believed had been misinterpreted and Campbell again failed to state which rule had been interpreted incorrectly in his interview with Shanks, though he did have two requests.

1) Resume the game from the point of appeal with the touchdown awarded to Peach County; or,
2) Name Peach County as co-champions alongside the real victors, Calhoun High School.

The Board declined to do either, in stark contrast to how they handled the Lee County appeal in May.
Related Post: Dangerous Precedent - GHSA Overturns Judgment Call (5/22/17).

New Bylaws reversed White's May precedent.

To understand why, we see that in October, the GHSA quietly voted in an amendment to the association's Bylaws, adding Bylaw 2.92(g), which states, "Judgement (sic) calls by contest officials are not reviewable or reversible."

Grammarians might even observe the amendment was rushed by considering the spelling of, "judgement."

Nonetheless, new GHSA Bylaw 2.92(g) ensures that what happened back in May when the same GHSA Board overturned an umpire's judgment call will not happen again: GHSA President Glenn White's Lee County baseball precedent has been superseded by Bylaw amendment... though Monday's Board meeting ended with White announcing that the Board will meet again in January.

Peach County recently announced its plan to complain and/or boycott the Georgia Farm Bureau in protest. The Georgia Farm Bureau is one of several GHSA corporate sponsors. The plan is to make GHSA, and its sponsors, pay.

In his interview with Shanks, Campbell summarized the event, calling it, "a complete joke" and announcing his resignation from GHSA Executive Committees for football and baseball in protest. Shanks and Campbell then accused the GHSA's attorney of "dumb[ing] them [The Board] up."

Campbell concluded, "It's not over. I'm not going to rest." Although the battle may get that much more difficult, with Campbell having resigned from having a say on the GHSA committees.