Posted by Eric Polsky on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 11:43 pm

One of the notable courtroom quotes in motion picture history is uttered in A Few Good Men, when Demi Moore’s character Lieutenant Commander JoAnne Galloway objected to a line of testimony of a witness and when the Judge overruled it, she stated that she “strenuously objects.”  Tom Cruise’s character mocked her later on with this gem: “’I strenuously object?’ Is that how it works? Hm? ‘Objection.’ ‘Overruled.’ ‘Oh, no, no, no. No, I strenuously object.’ ‘Oh, well if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.”

In Sunday night’s game between the Yankees and Marlins, the Yankees and manager Joe Girardi filed a protest which in all likelihood will turn out to be as futile as Moore’s “strenuous objection.”  After the bottom of the seventh inning, Marlins manager Fredi Gonzalez called for a double switch after Alejandro De Aza pinch-hit for pitcher Renyel Pinto. De Aza was supposed to take over in left field for Chris Coghlan, and Leo Nunez was to take Coghlan’s spot in the lineup.  But Coghlan erroneously went out onto the field for the start of the eighth inning, and after Nunez threw his first pitch to Derek Jeter for a strike, Girardi came out of the dugout and objected.

Girardi’s objection was that De Aza, not Coghlan, should have been in left field to start the eighth inning, as Coghlan had already been removed from the game.  A nearly ten-minute delay ensued while the umpires conferred, in which Coghlan was first ordered off the field and was replaced by De Aza.  But Girardi was not satisfied, as he believed De Aza should have been disqualified from participating due to the error. So the umpires conferred again, and De Aza was ordered off the field and a brand new player off of the bench, Jeremy Hermida, replaced him.  Girardi was still not satisfied, as he then believed Nunez should have been disqualified as well, or that the 0-1 count to Jeter should have been reset to 0-0. The umpires rejected that claim and Girardi filed a formal protest.  The Marlins won the game, 6-5.

Major League Baseball’s Official Rule 4.19 states the following:

Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire’s decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final.
Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team’s chances of winning the game.

 The rule has two layers. The first layer means that Girardi has to protest a specific decision by the umpires. In this case, umpire crew chief Jeff Kellogg told MLB.com that Girardi is protesting two decisions: 1) the umpires’ decision to allow Nunez to stay in the game, and 2) the umpires’ decision to allow Nunez’s strike to count. Girardi and the Yankees would like the game to be replayed from the start of the eighth inning, when the error occurred.   The second layer is that even if an umpires’ decision violates the rules, a replay of the game will not be ordered unless the violation “adversely affected” the Yankees’ chances of winning the game.

The Yankees will have a hard time getting past both layers.  First, they have to argue that the umpires’ decisions violated MLB’s rules. Official Rule 3.03 states that “A player once removed from a game shall not re-enter that game, ” and that “when two or more substitute players of the defensive team enter the game at the same time, the manager shall, immediately before they take their positions as fielders, designate to the umpire-in-chief such players’ positions in the team’s batting order.”  But, the Rules don’t appear to state specifically what happens when a violation of these specific rules occur. When that is the case, Rule 9.01 (c) states that the umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules. So, it appears that it was within Kellogg’s crew’s authority to allow Nunez to stay in the game and to allow the strike to count.

The Yankees will also have a difficult time getting past the second layer, which is that a possible violation “adversely affected” their chances of winning the game. Did the one strike thrown by Nunez to Jeter, with De Aza illegally in left field, “adversely affect” the Yankees’ chances of winning the game?  That depends who you ask. The Marlins would argue that De Aza had no involvement in that pitch whatsoever, and that Nunez or any other pitcher could have thrown a strike.  The Yankees’ argument would be a stretch, but they could argue that Nunez is a superior pitcher to any of the other Marlins’ bullpen options against Jeter and that a different pitcher’s initial pitch (Meyer? Lindstrom?) could have had a worse result (a ball or a hit).  It depends on how the league will define “adversely”. A very strict reading of the word could mean that an 0-1 count to a leadoff hitter is an adverse result as compared to a 1-0 count or a possible hit. But a reading of the word that involves some degree of reasonableness would mean that an 0-1 count is commonplace and could have happened regardless of which pitcher was on the mound.

With that in mind, lets look at the results of some recent protests:

• In the third inning of a game between the Indians and Orioles on April 2007, the Orioles were leading 2-1 with  runners on first (Miguel Tejada) and third (Nick Markakis). Ramon Hernandez of the Orioles hit a liner to center field, where Grady Sizemore made a diving catch. Sizemore threw to first in time to double off Tejada. But, Markakis had tagged up and scored well before Tejada was doubled off.  The umpires ruled that the run did not count and kept the score 2-1, despite the manager’s objections. But in the sixth inning with the score 2-2, umpire Ed Montague had a change of heart and suddenly added a run to the Orioles score, making the score 3-2 Orioles. The game finished with a 7-4 Orioles victory.  The Indians protested the game and MLB’s president and CFO, Bob DuPuy, denied the protest. MLB released this statement on the denial of the protest:

“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.”

• Also in 2007, the Reds filed a protest after a 7-6 loss to the Cubs, claiming that Cubs manager Lou Pinella had performed an illegal double switch in the sixth inning because he failed to inform the umpire of the switch before crossing the foul line on his way out to the field.  DuPuy and MLB denied the protest.
• In May 2005, the Mets filed a protest after a 5-3 loss in Washington to the Nationals, in which the umpires ended the game in the eighth inning due to poor field conditions after rain. Mets manager Willie Randolph protested based on his argument that the grounds crew took too long to fully cover the infield because the tarp had been folded improperly, and that the Nationals had to bring in people working in RFK Stadium’s parking lots to help. The protest was denied by MLB.
• In July 2004, the Yankees filed a protest after a subway series 6-5 loss to the Mets. In the eighth inning, Jorge Posada was hit by a grounder and the umpires ruled that he was automatically out. But the Yankees protested because they felt that second baseman Ty Wigginton would not have had a chance to field the ball even if Posada was not hit.  DuPuy denied the protest and backed the umpires’ judgment call.
• In April 2004, the Phillies filed a protest after a game with the Marlins, which ended with a Marlins 8-7 win in 12 innings. In the ninth inning, the Phillies’ Placido Polanco hit a ball to left field which got stuck under the padding on the wall, prompting Jeff Conine to throw up his hands, which resulted in the umpires calling it a ground-rule double.  Phillies manager Larry Bowa protested, saying the ball should have been played because it was clearly visible, and Polanco would have earned more than a double on the play. DuPuy and MLB denied the protest.
• In July 2000, the Mets filed a protest after a loss to the Yankees. The Yankees’ Chuck Knoblauch was thrown out trying to stretch a hit into a double, but umpire Rob Cook ruled that Mets first baseman Todd Zeile stood in Knoblauch’s way and awarded him second base. MLB denied the protest (but the game remains memorable because it was the infamous game in which Roger Clemens beaned Mike Piazza.)

The recent history of MLB’s handling of protests suggests that Sunday’s Yankees-Marlins protest will suffer the same fate of a denial.  In fact, you’d have to go back to 1986 to find the last time that a protest was upheld.  That protest was filed by the Pirates after a game against the Cardinals was called by umpire John Kibler due to rain in the sixth inning, resulting in a 4-1 loss. The Pirates argued the game was called too soon, as there were only two rain delays of 17 and 22 minutes, while rules required that umpires wait at least 75 minutes for an initial delay and 45 minutes for a second delay. NL President Chub Feeney agreed with the Pirates’ protest and ordered that the game be resumed two days later at the point it had been stopped.

Another notable successful protest just prior to that came in the infamous Pine Tar Game in 1983. For those who may not recall, in that game, the Royals trailed 4-3 with two outs in the ninth inning when George Brett hit a two run homer.  Yankees manager Billy Martin challenged the bat that Brett used and umpire Tim McClelland determined that the amount of pine tar on the bat exceeded the limit of 18 inches from the bat’s end.  McClelland overturned the homerun, called Brett out thus ending the game, and set Brett into a fury.  The Royals protested the game and it was upheld by American League President Lee McPhail. McPhail stated that the use of the bat did not violate the “spirit of the rules”. The game was replayed 25 days later and resumed from the point of the ninth inning following Brett’s homerun with the Royals up 5-4. The Royals won the game 5-4 (but not before Martin was ejected and notoriously made a mockery of that game by playing first baseman Don Mattingly at second base and pitcher Ron Guidry in center field).

By the way, Miami sports fans are no strangers to games being replayed after protest.  Pat Riley of the Miami Heat filed a protest after his team lost to the Atlanta Hawks in a game in December 2007. In that game, Shaquille O’Neal was disqualified from the game with 51 seconds remaining in overtime after being called for his sixth foul.  But Riley discovered that it was only O’Neal’s fifth foul, and protested after the game that the final 51 seconds should be replayed.  The NBA agreed and upheld the protest, and the final 51 seconds were replayed prior to the next scheduled game between the Heat and Hawks.  NBA Commissioner David Stern found that Miami suffered a “clear competitive disadvantage” as a result of the error. The Heat lost and the outcome had not changed. This protest was also memorable because O’Neal had been traded to the Phoenix Suns several weeks prior to the replayed game.  It should be noted here that the NBA’s choice of language of ”clear competitive disadvantage” is similar to MLB’s use of the language “adversely affected.”

In many of the recent MLB protests, it appears that MLB has routinely given considerable deference to the decisions made by the umpires and that they rarely find that a decision “adversely affected” the outcome of the game.  The League has given the umpires a great deal of authority to make decisions, such as the authority granted by Rule 9.01 (c). Perhaps the League feels that its best interest is served by maintaining the umpires’ authority and supporting the decisions they make, even if those decisions seem to be somewhat erroneous. Certainly some teams in the above examples could argue that their chances of winning were adversely affected, even more so than what the Yankees could argue in Sunday’s case.  MLB might also believe that umpires have enough second guessing to go around from players, managers and fans as it is, and that setting a precedent for successful protests is a dangerous proposition.

Nevertheless, the Yankees will have a difficult time trying to convince MLB to uphold their protest. But no matter the outcome, Girardi must have enjoyed making a dig at the Marlins. Certain hard feelings exist between Girardi and Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria dating back to 2006, when Girardi was fired as Marlins manager after the same season which he earned NL Manager of the Year. Perhaps Girardi may have been more successful if he was slightly more vindictive. If Girardi had waited for Nunez to throw additional pitches, or even complete the eighth inning, he might have had a better argument that the inning should have been replayed. At that point, perhaps the illegal Coghlan may have made a play in left field, or an illegal hitter may have attempted to lead off the bottom of the eighth.  But, as it is, the one pitch for a strike to Jeter does not seem to reach the level of having “adversely affected” the Yankees’ chances of winning the game. 

So, it shouldn’t be a surprise to see the league deny the Yankees’ protest. It also wouldn’t be a surprise to find out that Loria has mocked Girardi in a private conversation with some of his friends, saying “Oh, Joe strenuously objects? Oh, no, no, no. No, he strenuously objects. Oh, well if he strenuously objects then maybe the league should take some time to reconsider.”