What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Indians played much of Saturday night game (1 Viewer)

Bobcat10

Footballguy
This one has yet to clear up, but I was watching this fiasco and the umps botched up. They added a run for the Orioles about 3 innings after they made a bad call. The Orioles did not argue when the bad call happened and did not protest at that point. As soon as the run was allowed later in the game, changing the score of the game, the Indians protested immediately. The Indians announcers even broke out the rule book that seemed to prove the umps were wrong in going back and adding a run.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Protest should go Indians' way

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

History suggests that the Indians probably won't win their protest of Saturday's game, Jeff Zrebiec writes. The best-case scenario for the Indians would be if Major League Baseball ordered that the game be replayed from the moment that the umpires made their mistake, says Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro.

Most protests have no reasonable chance for success, but if common sense prevails, the Indians will win this protest, because the precedent established by the umpires on Saturday would create such a dangerous gray area for how similar situations would be handled in the future.

To review: The Orioles had runners at first and third and one out in the second inning. After Grady Sizemore made a diving catch of Ramon Hernandez's line drive, Nick Markakis tagged up and raced home. At the same time, Miguel Tejada was far off first base, and Sizemore threw to first and Tejada was doubled off -- but after Markakis crossed home plate. Markakis' run should have counted.

But home-plate umpire Marvin Hudson waved off the run. And the Orioles said nothing, at that time, as the Indians noted in their letter of protest. Two innings later, Baltimore bench coach Tom Trebelhorn walked out on the field to talk to Ed Montague about the decision -- and in the sixth inning, the umpires ordered that a run be added to the Orioles' score.

Now, if you believe in fallacy of the predetermined outcome, then this run wouldn't have made a difference. The Orioles wound up winning, 7-4, and not by one run. But baseball games are like road maps, each turn leading to the next. Anybody who has watched baseball knows that managers and players will make their decisions according to the game situation, and the score always frames the game situation.

Spoke with a number of folks in Major League Baseball on Sunday, and none of them could remember an instance in which umpires retroactively gave a run to a team, the way the umpires did for the Orioles.

So if Major League Baseball rejects the Cleveland protest and retroactive decisions become acceptable practice, what happens in the future?

Let's say that down the road the Orioles are playing the Angels, and Vladimir Guerrero pulls a ball down the left-field line, right near the foul pole -- and Montague, the umpire, rules it a foul ball. And then two innings later, Montague realizes that the ugly mark on the foul pole actually is due to Guerrero's line drive. Maybe he sees a replay while stopping by the men's room between innings. If his bottom line is only getting the call right, could he then, at that point, correct a mistake and give Guerrero a three-run homer? According to the precedent established on Saturday, it would seem he absolutely could do that.

What if an umpire inadvertently awards a walk to open an inning, on a 2-2 pitch, nobody says anything, and the team at bat goes on to score four runs -- and then the other umps realize, later, that the hitter shouldn't have been award first base. Can they go back and change the play?

And here's another horrifying thought: What if the exact same play that happened in Cleveland occurred next year, in a game that was ultimately decided by one run. Imagine if Montague realized his mistake during extra innings, or after the game was over? Should Montague then go back and add a run to the score, and make it a tie game? And if you were the team that lost by one run, wouldn't you absolutely expect to have your run added, since retroactive run-scoring would theoretically be the umpiring standard?

There are a billion scenarios like this, and probably a billion more that we haven't imagined, all created by the precedent of retroactive run scoring. To let this happen would open up a Pandora's box.

The Powers That Be may well decide to turn down the protest based on the three-run differential, but think about the precedent that would set. In all future protests, would the first consideration be the final score -- or the correct administration of the game's rules?
 
I was under the impression that an out recorded for leaving a base too early (which is what this play sounds like) trumped whatever results happened on a play. I also was under the impression that the results of the play would stand if the runner that made an out was TAGGED OUT instead of doubled off. Guess not.

So in the following scenario, two runs would score . . .

Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits a deep fly ball to the leftfield corner. The leftfielder jumps into the wall and makes a spectacular catch near the foul poll but gets hurt in the process and slumps to the ground. Runners on 2nd and 3rd both tag up and both players score. Runner on first does not tag up but also crosses home plate. Centerfielder eventually comes over and throws the ball back to the infield and the shorstop throws to the first baseman for the third out.

That just seems wrong, but apparently that is the rule.

 
I was under the impression that an out recorded for leaving a base too early (which is what this play sounds like) trumped whatever results happened on a play. I also was under the impression that the results of the play would stand if the runner that made an out was TAGGED OUT instead of doubled off. Guess not.So in the following scenario, two runs would score . . .Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits a deep fly ball to the leftfield corner. The leftfielder jumps into the wall and makes a spectacular catch near the foul poll but gets hurt in the process and slumps to the ground. Runners on 2nd and 3rd both tag up and both players score. Runner on first does not tag up but also crosses home plate. Centerfielder eventually comes over and throws the ball back to the infield and the shorstop throws to the first baseman for the third out.That just seems wrong, but apparently that is the rule.
Your scoring is correct. As long as the runner(s) cross(es) home plate prior to the 3rd out occurring, the run(s) count(s).Not sure what MLB will do about this 'retroactive run scoring' b.s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:coffee:

Who care's, they won by three. Protest, schmofest...
:ph34r: Like you don't think the pitching would have been different in a tie game than being down one?
I agree, the protest should go through, but for arguments sake, would the pitching be THAT much different? Wouldn't the pitchers still be struggling to allow as few runs as possible?
Probably not. But adding a run or runs 3 innings later is still setting a horrible precedent.
 
:goodposting:

Who care's, they won by three. Protest, schmofest...
:thumbup: Like you don't think the pitching would have been different in a tie game than being down one?
I agree, the protest should go through, but for arguments sake, would the pitching be THAT much different? Wouldn't the pitchers still be struggling to allow as few runs as possible?
Probably not. But adding a run or runs 3 innings later is still setting a horrible precedent.
Correct. In this particular situation, the pitching would not have been much different. But I don't think MLB wants to get into a situation by situation basis for all problems in the future, if something like this ever happens again. They just as easily could have added the run in the 8th or in extra innings. If you go by the book, the run should not have been granted 3 innings later. I believe the umps even said they botched, but I'm not sure if they meant that about the 3rd inning or the 6th inning, or both.Let's say the protest is granted....would they pick up the game from the botch in the 3rd giving the Orioles that run - Indians coming to bat....or from the 6th at the point where the extra run was granted but without giving the Orioles the run?

 
Serious question. What does anyone think the chances are of this protest being granted and the game having to be replayed from a certain point? Am I delusional thinking the chance is 0%?

 
Serious question. What does anyone think the chances are of this protest being granted and the game having to be replayed from a certain point? Am I delusional thinking the chance is 0%?
Sorta depends how you are thinking. I've seen really nothing that suggests the umps did anything by the book. They botched the original call, then botched the addition of the run. So thinking that way I'd say something must be done. Alot of this will come down to what the Orioles are saying, and I've heard that a base coach said something after the botched play...but the umps still waved off the run. But I think the Orioles did not protest anything officially at that moment (they had to before the next pitch), so that should be held against anything they say.But we all know protests are never successful. Thinking this way, MLB will take the protest fee and put it in the bank and say thanks. They'll make up some lame Selig excuse and the game will stand.I don't think they'll replay anything in the end, but I'm not at 0%. Probably more like 25%.
 
I suspect they will not do anything about this if only because nothing changed at the point when the call was made. Either way, there were still 3 outs and the inning was over.

They normally consider having to replay the game from a certain point when the call that was made was made IN THE MIDDLE of an inning and it changed how many outs there may or may not have been. In that case, the outcome of that inning would have been different while in the game over the weekend it was not.

The best outcome for the protest is that the run that was added would be diasallowed saying that if the umps blew the call they can't change it three innings later and that the final score should be really be 6-4.

As I said, I can't see them doing anything with regard to replaying the game from the point of the protest.

 
I suspect they will not do anything about this if only because nothing changed at the point when the call was made. Either way, there were still 3 outs and the inning was over......The best outcome for the protest is that the run that was added would be diasallowed saying that if the umps blew the call they can't change it three innings later and that the final score should be really be 6-4.
I agree here. :lmao: If any part of the game were to be replayed, it would have to be from when the umpires added the run to the score, not when the play happened. I think MLB could save some face by upholding the protest due to the outcome of the game not being directly affected and returning Cleveland's protest money.
 
I also don't think anything will happen, but what if the Orioles won 5-4, not 7-4?

What some of you are suggesting is a horrible precedent. You'd only replay a game if it mattered in the outcome.

Plus, you can't say with 100% certainty that if the run was not added in, the score would have been 6-4.

 
Bobcat10 said:
Plus, you can't say with 100% certainty that if the run was not added in, the score would have been 6-4.
True. But neither can you say with 100% certainty that the game would not have ended just as it did. So what then is MLB to do? Go with the hassle and confusion of taking away stats and wins and losses, scheduling a half of a make up game (for which the lineup will not be the same most likely) OR take the final as it happened and reprimand the umpires for TWO mistakes made in the game? I would think the latter of the two would be the most meaningful, IMO.But let's not forget the George Brett pine tar incident. That protest did happen and the game was rescheduled and replayed from the point of protest on. So rare as it may be, it has happened (in modern era).What was the score of the game when the umpires added the disallowed run? Whenever that protest was made is when and where the game would have to revert to if it were to be replayed.
 
What was the score of the game when the umpires added the disallowed run? Whenever that protest was made is when and where the game would have to revert to if it were to be replayed.
Game summary...
Orioles 7, Indians 4

CLEVELAND -- Score it: E-umpires.

Veteran umpire Ed Montague took the blame for a run being added to Baltimore's total three innings after it appeared to be waved off in the Orioles' 7-4 victory over Cleveland on Saturday night.

The Indians played the game under protest after Montague, the crew chief, called the official scorer in the bottom of the sixth to add the third-inning run which scored on a sacrifice fly.

"There's going to be a tremendous follow up with this and we'll see if we can get it figured out," Cleveland manager Eric Wedge said.

The bizarre sequence started with Baltimore leading 2-1 in the top of the third. Nick Markakis was on third base and Miguel Tejada on first with one out when Ramon Hernandez hit a line drive to center field.

Indians outfielder Grady Sizemore made a diving catch. Markakis tagged up, headed for home and appeared to cross the plate before Tejada doubled off first. Plate umpire Marvin Hudson waved off the run.

Orioles bench coach Tom Trebelhorn disputed Hudson's call before the start of the fourth, and Hudson then conferred with Montague and the other umpires.

"We kicked it around and now I'm having a brain cramp on it," Montague said. "So I sent Bill (umpire Bill Miller) in, I said 'You know what, cause we're debating, you go in. Lets make it 100 percent sure."'

Miller checked the rule and said the run should have counted. Montague was vague about why it took until the sixth to make the change, saying "it kind of went on" with the umpires conferring with the managers.

"It was my screw up and we can't go off of umpire's error," he said. "What's right is right. We have to score the run."

Montague said he couldn't remember anything like it happening and didn't blame Wedge for his protest, which will be decided by commissioner Bud Selig's office.

Wedge protested the game because the change was not made immediately.

"I know the umpires have a tough job to do, but there is a process and there are rules," he said. "When the next pitch is thrown, that's it. The fact is the home plate umpire waved it off. I've never seen runs put on the board three or four innings later."

Baltimore manager Sam Perlozzo said Trebelhorn alerted him that the run should count.

"I told Sammy it's never too late," Trebelhorn said. "That's our run. I've seen runs put on the board after the game."

Corey Patterson and Ramon Hernandez both had two-run doubles to help the Orioles snap a five-game losing streak and end the Indians' winning streak at six.

The Indians took a 4-3 lead in the sixth on Jhonny Peralta's two-run homer, but Baltimore scored twice in the eighth. Tejada started the rally with a single off Fernando Cabrera (1-1). Jay Payton singled with one out before a groundout moved the runners to second and third. Patterson doubled to right on an 0-2 pitch from Aaron Fultz.

Jamie Walker (1-0) pitched one-third of an inning for the win. Chris Ray worked the ninth for his seventh save.
 
Bobcat10 said:
Plus, you can't say with 100% certainty that if the run was not added in, the score would have been 6-4.
True. But neither can you say with 100% certainty that the game would not have ended just as it did. So what then is MLB to do? Go with the hassle and confusion of taking away stats and wins and losses, scheduling a half of a make up game (for which the lineup will not be the same most likely) OR take the final as it happened and reprimand the umpires for TWO mistakes made in the game? I would think the latter of the two would be the most meaningful, IMO.But let's not forget the George Brett pine tar incident. That protest did happen and the game was rescheduled and replayed from the point of protest on. So rare as it may be, it has happened (in modern era).What was the score of the game when the umpires added the disallowed run? Whenever that protest was made is when and where the game would have to revert to if it were to be replayed.
But my question still is:
I also don't think anything will happen, but what if the Orioles won 5-4, not 7-4? What some of you are suggesting is a horrible precedent. You'd only replay a game if it mattered in the outcome.
The 100% certainty thing of course goes both ways.To answer your question:Mid 3rd - score was 2-1 Balt when that half inning ended (although it should have been 3-1 Balt).During the bottom of the 6th (I remember because the Indians were batting) the run was added to the 3rd inning total on the scoreboard. After the 6th was complete, the score was 4-3 Cleveland, instead of 4-2. I'm not sure at what point in that half inning the run was added. The Indians scored two runs that inning, so that is probably another problem when deciding when to replay the game.
 
MLB may rule on Tribe's protest today

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Paul Hoynes

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Major League Baseball is expected to make a ruling today on the Indians' protest of Saturday's 7-4 loss to Baltimore at Jacobs Field.

The Indians filed a protest with Jimmie Lee Solomon, MLB's executive vice president of baseball operations, on Sunday. MLB has five days to make a ruling.

"I'm hopeful we can get a positive result," said manager Eric Wedge.

The play in question came in the third inning. Ramon Hernandez, with Baltimore leading, 2-1, sent a liner to center with Nick Markakis on third and Miguel Tejada on first with one.

Grady Sizemore made a diving catch and threw to Ryan Garko at first, who stepped on the bag to complete an inning-ending double play. Before Tejada was out, Markakis scored.

The run should have counted, but plate umpire Marvin Hudson waved it off. The umpires finally gave the Orioles the run in the bottom of the sixth, changing the score from 2-2 to 3-2.

Wedge protested the game as soon as crew chief Ed Montague informed the official scorer to give Baltimore another run. Wedge had to make the protest before the next pitch, which is the basis of the Indians' protest.

The Indians contend the Orioles had to address Hudson's blown call before the next pitch. When they didn't, the Indians believe umpires shouldn't have been able to add the run in the sixth.

They believe the fact that the umpires waited until the sixth inning to change the call gives the umpires leeway to change any call at any time of a game.

"I think that's something they have to consider," said Wedge.

If the Indians' protest is upheld, and the game is resumed, it probably would be played this weekend in Baltimore where the Indians open a four-game series.
 
MLB denies Indians protest

Posted by Paul Hoynes

May 02, 2007 13:38PM

Major League Baseball today denied the Indians protest of Saturday's game against Baltimore at Jacobs Field.

The Indians protested the game in the bottom of the sixth inning after crew chief Ed Montague ordered the official scorer to give Baltimore another run stemming from a missed call by plate umpire Marvin Hudson in the third inning. Montague's ruling changed the score from 2-2 to 3-2 in Baltimore's favor.

The Orioles won the game, 7-4.

Bob DuPuy, MLB's president and chief operating officer, denied the Indians protest.

It's believed DuPuy based his decision on the umpires ultimately making the right call. It's also believed the umpires involved were disciplined by MLB.

In his report of the incident, Montague reportedly stated he was trying to get the run added to the scoreboard between innings after the missed call, but questions arose about who controls the scoreboard - the umpires or the home team.

Montague finally got the score changed by calling the pressbox while the Indians were batting in the sixth.
:bs:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top