His protesting the game over the pickoff replay reversal. Good god joe, they got the call right.
http://m.rays.mlb.com/video/

He's got every right to. The rule was not followed.

I loved his quote they kept showing on MLB.

Rules also say it's the Crew Chief's judgment and he has final say. So like every other judgment call in a game, I think they'll let it stand even if his judgment may have been incorrect vs a case where they got a rule wrong.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 8/24/2014 10:40a).]

And in the end the call was correct, so that's all joe wants right is a fair shake? Yeah the judgement part of the rule will get joe on this one. But joe kept saying it has nothing to do with timing. He was try to spin it into an easy protest win for him. He would not acknowledge the part of the rule about the crew chiefs discretion.

Love Joe Maddon.

Not to mention, I don't see MLB opening pandora's box to this type of judgment resulting in games needing to be replayed due to protest. They ultimately made it a crew chief judgment call for a reason.

quote:

---

Timing of Manager Challenges and Crew Chief Reviews.

1. Except as otherwise set forth in Sections II.D.2-4 below, to be timely, a Manager must exercise his challenge (by verbal communication to the appropriate Umpire), or the Crew Chief must initiate Replay Review (if applicable pursuant to Section II.C above) before the commencement of the next play or pitch. Such challenge or request will be considered timely only if the Umpire acknowledges that communication within the time period specified above. For purposes of these Regulations, the next "play" shall commence when the pitcher is on the rubber preparing to start his delivery and the batter has entered the batter's box (unless the defensive team initiates an appeal play in which case any call made during the play prior to the appeal still may be subject to Replay Review). A challenge to a play that ends the game must be invoked immediately upon the conclusion of the play, and both Clubs shall remain in their dugouts until the Replay Official issues his decision. No substitutions or pitching changes may take place while the Umpires are in the process of invoking Replay Review.
2. In the case of a pitching change after the conclusion of a play but before the conclusion of the inning: (a) the defensive manager must exercise his challenge before signaling for a pitching change; and (b) the offensive Manager must exercise his challenge, or the Crew Chief (if applicable pursuant to Section II.C above) must initiate Replay Review, before the relief pitcher steps onto the warning track or, in the case on on-field bullpen areas, crosses the foul line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Crew Chief shall have the discretion to permit a challenge by the offensive Manager if the Crew Chief determines that the defensive Manager called for a relief pitcher in an accelerated fashion for the sole purpose of preventing the offensive Manager from having a reasonable opportunity to exercise his challenge. The Field Timing Coordinator (see Section II.E below) shall hold up a RED card and communicate via his headset to inform the broadcasters that the mid-inning pitching change break for that game (2:05 or 2:30) has commenced. If the Crew Chief exercises his discretion to permit a challenge by the offensive Manager during a mid-inning pitching change after the Field Timing Coordinator already has signaled for the commencement of a commercial break, the Field Timing Coordinator will inform the Crew Chief to delay announcing the results of Replay Review until after the normal inning break (2:05 or 2:30) has elapsed.
3 In the case of a play that results in a third-out call, a Manager must immediately run onto the field to notify the Umpire that the Club is contemplating challenging the play (and in all circumstances must be on the field in less than ten (10) seconds from the Umpire's third-out call), and in such cases the Crew Chief shall hold the defensive players on the field. The Manager will have no more than thirty (30) seconds after entering the field to notify an Umpire that he is invoking a challenge. In the case of a play that results in a third-out call and is subject to review at the discretion of the Crew Chief, the Crew Chief must either immediately initiate a Replay Review or signal for an Umpire conference to discuss the play while holding the defensive players on the field. If a Manager who is out of challenges desires to request that the Crew Chief review the play at his discretion, the Manager must immediately run on the field to make such a request.
4. In the case of a play that results in a Crew Chief review, a Manager who seeks to exercise a challenge with respect to another call from that play which is not otherwise part of the Crew Chief review must invoke his challenge before the Crew Chief makes communication contact with the Replay Official.
5. If the Crew Chief determines that a Club's invocation of a Manager's Challenge is untimely, the play shall not be reviewed, the Umpire's call shall stand, and the Club shall not be charged with a challenge. The Crew Chief shall have the final authority to determine whether a Manager's Challenge is timely. The judgment of the Crew Chief regarding the timeliness of a Manager's Challenge shall be final and binding on both Clubs, and shall not be reviewable by Replay Review or otherwise.

---

Here's what Maddon is arguing (Straight from MLB.com)

The way I interpret it is much the same that Maddon does. Once that pitcher steps on the rubber and the batter is in the box, the play is over and the next play has begun. Can't challenge after that. The rule states that the crew chief can make allowances to the timeliness based on sections 2-4; section 2 involves pitching changes, 3 involves the third out of an inning, 4 involves challenging a different part of the reviewed play. None of the these are applicable.

Section K is a little more interesting, especially section 4.

quote:

---

Irrevocable and Final.

1. Once a Manager informs an Umpire that he wishes to exercise a Manager's Challenge, it may not be rescinded.
2. The decision of the Replay Official to either uphold or change one or more calls subject to Replay Review, and any decisions as to the placement of runners or other necessary actions to be taken, shall be final and binding on both Clubs and is not subject to further review or revision.
3. Once Replay Review is initiated, no uniformed personnel from either Club shall be permitted to further argue the contested calls or the decision of the Replay Official. Onfield personnel who violate this provision shall be ejected.
4. Official Baseball Rule 4.19 shall have no applicability to these Replay Regulations. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the Replay Official. Moreover, a violation of any rule or procedure set forth herein shall not constitute a basis for protesting a game.
5. In circumstances in which Replay Review is not available (e.g., the call is not reviewable, no Manager Challenge or Crew Chief review is available or, after the seventh inning, the Crew Chief has communicated that he has declined to initiate Replay Review), if a manager, coach, or player makes reference to having observed a video replay that purportedly contradicts the call under dispute, such person is subject to immediate ejection from the game.

---

It says the Protest Rule does not apply to the Replay Regulations. On the other hand it says "Replay Official," not "Crew Chief," whose mistake Maddon is protesting.

In the end, I think the Crew Chief screwed up. And it may have played a role in what ended as a one-run loss.

But Duberstein's right. MLB is not going to admit the error and uphold the protest to the point of erasing the last half of the game and redoing it.

#1 and #5 in your first post are what matter. And the crew chief's judgment was that the batter was not yet in the box so it was timely under #1. His judgment might have been wrong, but he was applying the appropriate rule which is why I don't expect MLB to change the outcome.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 8/24/2014 5:50p).]

The procedure is that Gibbons has to let the appropriate umpire know he is going to protest the call, before the pitcher and batter get into position.

Ultimately that means getting up, going to the first base umpire, and notifying him. I don't think anyone can argue that Gibbons did that before Buehrle and Escobar were ready. It seemed like, best case, he might have gotten the third base umpire's attention at about the same time those guys were in position.

Crew Chief Davidson gets to decide if Gibbons asked Bill Welke for a replay review in time; Davidson is not the one to ask for the review.

quote:

---

Joe Maddon is such a pissant.

---

This is true.

I don't get the hate...

The guy is sharp as a tack and he'd certainly be a drastic change of style in a place like Arlington. Maybe just what the doctor ordered.

He's eloquent. He's sophisticated. He quantifies every move. He's been successful with marginal rosters.

He's the anti-Wash.

Joe is one of the best skippers in the game.

And he's an ass.

If he is your manager, he is great.

If he is the manager for a competing team, he is an absolute dewsh bag!

He is the instigator in chief and mr. passive aggressive. He places way too much value on chest puffing, name calling and pushing buttons than a person in his elevated position should. I think he is unprofessional in his desire to manufacture interest in extra curricular activities.

All that said, he is a good in game manager. His players respect him and he's done a great job with limited resources.

Now AK will take everything I said and make it all on David Ortiz... GO AK!

PROTEST DENIED! Chew on that big boy. The purpose of replay is to get the call right, now we have people wanting the correct call overturned.

quote:

---

If he is your manager, he is great.

If he is the manager for a competing team, he is an absolute dewsh bag!

He is the instigator in chief and mr. passive aggressive. He places way too much value on chest puffing, name calling and pushing buttons than a person in his elevated position should. I think he is unprofessional in his desire to manufacture interest in extra curricular activities.

All that said, he is a good in game manager. His players respect him and he's done a great job with limited resources.

Now AK will take everything I said and make it all on David Ortiz... GO AK!

---

I'm confused. For the Blue Jays, Mark Beurhle was the pitcher, Adam Lind was the first baseman, Dioner Navarro was the catcher, and John Gibbons was the manager. For the Rays, Wil Myers was the runner, Yunil Escobar was the batter, and Joe Maddon was the manager.

When did the Red Sox become part of the story?

But to the actual topic of the thread, I think you could have a long discussion about whether the protest was denied because the right call was made, or because MLB doesn't like to admit problems and mistakes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If he is your manager, he is great.

If he is the manager for a competing team, he is an absolute dewsh bag!

He is the instigator in chief and mr. passive aggressive. He places way too much value on chest puffing, name calling and pushing buttons than a person in his elevated position should. I think he is unprofessional in his desire to manufacture interest in extra curricular activities.

All that said, he is a good in game manager. His players respect him and he's done a great job with limited resources.

Now AK will take everything I said and make it all on David Ortiz... GO AK!

---

I'm confused. For the Blue Jays, Mark Beurhle was the pitcher, Adam Lind was the first baseman, Dioner Navarro was the catcher, and John Gibbons was the manager. For the Rays, Wil Myers was the runner, Yunil Escobar was the batter, and Joe Maddon was the manager.

When did the Red Sox become part of the story?

---

Just accelerating a Rays critique to the usual end response.

FTR - I was actually responding to the question of "why the hate". Not about this particular instance.

quote:

---

Just accelerating a Rays critique to the usual end response.

---

"That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom."
"Yes, this is horrible, this idea."

This has turned into a surprisingly entertaining thread.

I had no idea that Maddon was so polarizing. Not the usual dorkfest stats and tedious reading.

Carry on...

Additionally, I believe the OP misspoke, or perhaps auto correct was involved. Clearly, he meant "poussant," not pissant.

Poussant is the present participle of "pousse," French for push, or more colloquially, encourage. As Maddon is highly regarded as a motivator, helping the franchise do more with less, this is an accurate characterization, if a little strange grammatically.

So I am going to the O's/Rays game tonight. I think I am going to print out this thread and send it via clubhouse courier to Maddon.

Maybe he'll have his team start another fight for us this evening.

AK and Corleone, if you guys are watching, I'll be the white guy with no shirt on with a Texags logo painted on my chest!

quote:

---

But to the actual topic of the thread, I think you could have a long discussion about whether the protest was denied because the right call was made, or because MLB doesn't like to admit problems and mistakes.

---

The protest was denied because it had no merit. They made their judgment to review it, which was within the rules. This protest had the same chance of success as protesting a game over a disagreement of a strike call, ie no chance. The guy with the power to make a judgment within the rules made a judgment.

Right. Because MLB has only made 15 mistakes in the last 100 years.

Thanks for the jinx, chowdah.

So much biching about a correct call.

quote:

---

Thanks for the jinx, chowdah.

---

He needs to pass Joe a love note every game.

quote:

---

So much biching about a correct call.

---

Saying it was the right call is like saying it's okay that I made it to work on time even though I ran a red light and drove the wrong way on a one-way road.

quote:

---

Saying it was the right call

---

quote:

---

So much biching about a correct call.

---

While this may seem nitpicky, correct and right aren't necessarily the same thing.

And yeah, there is an awful lot of biching going on around what ended up being the correct call. The purpose of introducing replay was to ensure that a ruling made on the field was called correctly. Well, based on that purpose, the replay was successful. They got the call correct.

So Maddon whines about the procedure used to make the correct call. But Maddon likes to whine and instigate. Its Joe being Joe.

quote:

---

Saying it was the right call is like saying it's okay that I made it to work on time even though I ran a red light and drove the wrong way on a one-way road.

---

This is ridiculous. It's not like there was some egregius breach of procedure that has been ignored here. There was a judgment made about the signal from the Toronto bench, and it was a judgment the crew chief is given discretion to make.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 8/28/2014 9:56a).]

quote:

---

Thanks for the jinx, chowdah.

---

Anytime! Just wish it were for a good cause ie. Sox in a playoff hunt.

But that's the thing. You don't ask for a review with an ambiguous signal from the bench. You go out and notify the umpire who made the call that you want his call to be reviewed. And you do it before the next play begins.

Davidson made a mistake by allowing the challenge. MLB turned down the protest because it wasn't so egregious as to definitively alter the result, and because they hate being shown up.

And he's at it again.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/11541203/joe-girardi-livid-derek-jeter-hit-rays-again-not-pincushions

Yup. Maddon is responsible for a rookie pitcher missing a pitch on an 0-2 count against an aging, slumping player, who just happened to be the guest of honor that night.

But nobody is responsible for a veteran pitcher going inside on Kiermaier the very next inning.

That's the New York baseball guy for ESPN, and he still can't write it up without Girardi sounding petulant and whiny.