Baseball's instant replay: Wait up to six days to decide if a call was blown, then actually replay the game from that point.
The Angels are protesting a call from the first inning of last night's game.
In a sport where it is generally accepted that bad calls will even out over the course of a long season, I wonder how this ever became the rule in the first place...
I would love to see the league uphold the protest because that would mean that the Angels and Whitesox would have to pretty much play another full game. It would also mean that the Angels would have to find a way to make it back to Chicago or to play it at the end of the season if it would determine the playoffs.
If the Angels were to end 1/2 game out and they had to play that game for the wildcard, that would be they would have to use 2 pitchers to get past the Wild card round of the playoffs.
<I would love to see the league uphold the protest because that would mean that the Angels and Whitesox would have to pretty much play another full game. >
You’re sick. The Angels lost, and that is the best thing that can happen to the Rangers. What if it turns out, Archimedes, that the Angels beat us by one game because their protest was affirmed? And, besides, there are two chances the protest will be affirmed - zero and none - so stop talking about it.
I was aware of the rule, I just didn't know that it could take up to 6 days for the ruling to occur. (Angels get 24 hours to submit, MLB takes up to 5 days to rule.)
In this day and age, that really seems excessive. If they could rule on it today, they would have a chance to replay tomorrow if need be.
What keeps teams from protesting any old blown call? You never know what call a game will turn on. Does there have to be demonstrable change in scoring, like there was last night? Konerko would not have been on base when the home run was hit.
"What keeps teams from protesting any old blown call?"
I think it has to be a rule interpretation issue to formally protest. Scosia is saying that the umpire agreed that Konerko was definitely out of the running lane but refused to envoke the rule that he was out. The umpire is saying it's his interpretation that because he didn't impede the throw or catch, he is not required to call him out.
The key to that statement is "I think". I don't really know but based on the reports I've seen "I think" that's correct. Anyway, the umpire did have justification to call him out as he was clearly outside the running lane. Had he done that, I don't think the Sox could have protested.