Balk with runner stealing

[Guest Casey]

Runners on 1st and 2nd. 

Runner on 2nd takes off to steal 3rd. In the process of the move to pickoff, the pitcher balks. 

Runner is safe at 3rd, pitcher has balked...

Is the runner awarded home on the balk?

This is Little League Juniors (13-14 year old).

I can't find this anywhere...but I don't know what to look for. Thanks!

[JonnyCat]

On 6/15/2022 at 9:15 AM, Guest Casey said:

The League is considering the protest. I've submitted that under rule 4.19 (c) (1), the protest is invalid, as the coach did not immediately indicate he was protesting the game and instead allowed play to continue. As I read the rule, the moment another pitch is thrown you've lost the ability to protest a game due to that particular disputed call. Is that correct?

 

39 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Because, if it was a valid protest, that is the point the protest was made.

As I'm reading, it wasn't a valid protest. Opposing coach needed to protest right after the play.

Not sure what organization Guest Casey plays under, but if it was Little League, it's time to get the District Administrator involved. If that doesn't work, then go to your Regional Director.

Yes, you could just play the game and hope for the best, but that won't fix the failures of the BOD, nor aid in the removal of that coach.

This needs to be fixed, otherwise it's time to walk away from this league. Not only how they act is unethical, it is completely against the rules and may be illegal, as well.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, JonnyCat said:

As I'm reading, it wasn't a valid protest. Opposing coach needed to protest right after the play.

As I'm reading it...at some point somehow for some reason they have decided it was a valid protest.  So, if they've magically decided it's a valid protest, for whatever reason as questionable the determination and evidence may be (or if in fact legitimate) then it needs to be executed from that time.

 

Edit - the possibility always exists that whomever made this decision has determined (right or wrong) that the coach did in fact protest right after the play (with or without explicit specific language) and that request wasn't properly administered/understood/executed...ie. the "protest" that occurred at end of inning was a reiteration/clarification/repeat of the earlier rules dispute/protest that did occur right after the play.

 

Further edit - to be clear, this has the stink of political corruption and a lack of ethics all over it...but there is an "out" here, and it seems it's being used.

 

[HokieUmp]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The coach may be a horse's ass, but in the end he was defending his players against a perceived injustice.  As you said, you don't want to win on a technicality.  Losing on a technicality is 1000 times worse.

My dude, I was with you until this part.  (And for the most part, I still am;  it's just this part "clanged" in my head when I read it.)  My alternate wording of that first sentence would be "The coach may be perceived to be a horse's ass, but in the end, he proved everyone's suspicions to be correct."  That behaviour was less of a defense against injustice, than an outright attempt to bully officials/opponents into getting his way.

Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and to-MAY-to/to-MAH-to, and whatnot.  But I'm pretty much on #TeamHe'sADouche all the way.

My suspicion is this coach threatened to sue, or go to the press, or something similar, and someone caved.   In the end, it's the "right" call...with extremely poor execution.  I'm not interested in the technicality of the timing. 

I don't agree;  they upheld a protest that wasn't, and that wasn't done "legally" in any form.  And there's zero transparency on the process.  So, honestly, Guest Casey should ALSO be threatening some legal "whisper campaign" to expose the haphazard way this league does its processes - or just go up the LL chain of command.

ESPECIALLY in such a setting - some level of champion final is going to/should have league officials present.   And especially if this coach has the reputation you say he has.

It's sometimes breathtaking how things get SO spun up once it goes from run-of-the-mill regular season games, to when trophies get handed out.

Commented in-line, just to avoid including the entire post.

[JonnyCat]

On 6/15/2022 at 11:03 PM, Guest Casey said:

For the resolution - I think the league handled it well. The President pulled Board members not connected in any way to the two teams, no kids in Juniors…who didn’t know what had happened in the game or even that Juniors games were still being played. They read a letter from me, arguing the protest was invalid based on rule 4.19, a letter from the opposing coach, and a letter from the umpire. 
 

The committee voted unanimously that our team had won and the protest failed. I have not heard their reasoning.

@beerguy55 You're right, it does stink of corruption. The protest committee had already ruled. How was this legally and ethically overturned? It wasn't!

The District Administrator and the Regional Director need to get involved immediately!

Guest Casey, find out who your DA is and contact him/her right away. What state are you in? Let me know and I can get you the appropriate regional office information. If you don't know who your DA is, call the regional office and they can provide that information.

Do not let this go! Get the higher ups involved and don't let them get away with this. People like this, coaches/corrupt board members, do not belong in youth baseball. Get rid of them.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

Commented in-line, just to avoid including the entire post.

You're getting hung up on the technicality that he didn't say "I'm playing this game under protest" at the exact time he should have (and don't get me wrong, there are rules for a reason and we have to draw lines somewhere).   As I've said before, it's defensible to deny the protest.   But don't ever ignore someone who is wrong on a technicality.   Kind of curious if the rules define what exact words and language you have to say to file a protest.  Or is it like an "obvious appeal"?

And I've already highlighted how one could get around that, if they really wanted to.   The league would have an obligation to be transparent here and simply say something like "it has been determined that the coach did indeed protest the game, in his initial discussion with the umpires, immediately after the play, but the intent was misunderstood in the moment - we believe if that clarity had occurred the ruling would have been administered properly at that time - as such, we believe the correct remedy is to place the runners as appropriate, and resume the batter's at bat, to the rest of the game."   yadda yadda yadda

All I'm saying is do not dismiss the coach's perspective here...and don't ignore his actions simply because it isn't what he should have done or isn't what you would have done.   Or simply because he's an ass.  The league made that mistake.

The golden rule is "treat others as you want to be treated"...the platinum rule is "treat others as THEY want to be treated".   Likewise - it doesn't matter how you or I would react here, it only matters how he would.

Remember one simple fact...no matter how douch-y the coach is, no matter how despicable a human being he is, at the end of the day he was right about the rule, the umpires were not.  Dismiss him as a mindless bully at your peril.   He has a case.   He's doing everything the wrong way, but he has a cause to hang his hat on.  The call was wrong...the time limit is an arbitrary technicality.  And some people are like a dog on a bone in these scenarios.   He doesn't have to believe he is right...he IS right.   Being told "yeah, you're right, but you were too late...if you had said something 90 seconds earlier you would have won the protest" is not going to get a positive reaction.   His response is almost certainly going to be..."wait a minute, I did protest right after the play."

I don't ever want to encourage this bullying behavior, but it sounds like the league has been fostering this for years, so they've made their bed, and in many ways have put themselves into this situation.   All I can hope is they can learn from it.

 

 

 

 

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Kind of curious if the rules define what exact words and language you have to say to file a protest.  Or is it like an "obvious appeal"?

Little League rules are very specific on this. It is outlined in Rule 4.19. Without citing every word of the rule, I'll let Senor Azul do that, according to 4.19(c)(1) the manager must notify the umpire immediately that the game is being played under protest.

4.19(e), the protest must be submitted by the manager first to the umpire, then in writing to the league president within 24 hours.

There is a specific protocol to a protest. 

The fact that the protest committee already issued their ruling, leads me to believe the coach erred in his responsibility to file a valid protest. A letter from the opposing coach and a letter from the umpire were both submitted to the protest committee, according to the OP. Seems to me that the president illegally reversed the protest committee's ruling. Not only that, the protest committee are the only ones that can issue a ruling. Period. Once the protest committee has ruled, they would be the only ones to reverse their decision. It's not up to anyone else. Something SH*#ty is going on.

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Remember one simple fact...no matter how douch-y the coach is, no matter how despicable a human being he is, at the end of the day he was right about the rule, the umpires were not.

Doesn't matter. The coach has an obligation to follow the protest guidelines. If he missed his window of opportunity, it's just too bad. Right or wrong, if he didn't follow protocol, he's SOL. 

Like I said earlier, it appears that the protest committee did their due diligence, and issued a ruling. That ruling is final and can only be reversed by the protest committee themselves.

I'm not saying that the protest committee did everything by the book, nor am I privy to all the facts. But from my vantage point, something very shady is going on.

[Velho]

[The Man in Blue]

F$&! the children, this is SERIOUS!  It ain’t no kids’ game!  
 

What?  It is?  Oh.  Storm the office of the League President anyway!
 

Sorry, ain’t no way in 4311 that I would be dragging my players out for this.  You need to call it a forfeit, big man?  Yeah, OK, whatever.

[Guest Casey]

Final update (I hope). We played...we were given a set of rules about missing players and lineups before the game that we were told came from our District ...President?, some official at District. We arrived, the District Umpires changed all of those rules. I don't know which rules were right or wrong - I do know it is wrong to change them in the moment, after already announcing that they would be binding. 

We lost the game.

It was a joke at every level. The other team went to TOC, which is fine. My other coach went to the tournament to watch another team play. Board members from our LL were telling him how much we got screwed, and it was wrong for "them" to do this to us. But, there was no "them," it  was those very people who had done it...with the District. 

I wish I could trust this process...but it was so shrouded in secrecy and changed so many times. My guess is that we had a resolution at the League level, and the other coach went to District, had a friend there or threatened something, wore them down, and got his way. 

Even the district ump who umpired the final game told my coach yesterday that it was wrong we had to play, and that our argument that the protest was invalid should have stood. 

I will say - it is impossible to resume a game from the point of the protest. Ineligible pitchers from the first game become eligible for the second...injured players from the first game become eligible for the second (though, that coach has a reputation for telling kids they're injured so he doesn't have to give minimum play time), we had 2 kids leave for vacation...so holes in our lineup that the other team got to fill. Anyone can say all they want that it is a continuation of the protested game from the protest, but it isn't. The entirety of the situation shifted the game in their favor from before the first pitch. 

In any case - it's over and I'm glad. My kid's aged out of LL...unless where we're moving has a 15/16...but he''ll hopefully be playing high school. I don't know if that will be any better! lol!

 

Thanks everyone,

Casey

[Velho]

Sorry to hear how it turned out. Good on you for keeping your chin up.

17 minutes ago, Guest Casey said:

but he''ll hopefully be playing high school. I don't know if that will be any better! lol!

Unfortunately, I can tell you from experience that it being better is not a given. 

[Lou B]

I'd probably still write a letter to the Regional Office and Williamsport - it's the only way they find out about things like this going on.

[HokieUmp]

So, we've already seen the resolution of the OP's deal.  I've been a little busy with some tournament stuff lately, so I didn't get a chance to address this at the time.

Quote

You're getting hung up on the technicality that he didn't say "I'm playing this game under protest" at the exact time he should have (and don't get me wrong, there are rules for a reason and we have to draw lines somewhere).   As I've said before, it's defensible to deny the protest.   But don't ever ignore someone who is wrong on a technicality.   Kind of curious if the rules define what exact words and language you have to say to file a protest.  Or is it like an "obvious appeal"?

No, I'm really not hung up on the technicality of it.  I'm hung up on the fact that he didn't protest at the time at which it's relevant.  That's not a technicality.  The wording of his protest doesn't mean jack to me.  It's exactly like "obvious appeal" to me, in that if he says some version of protest, I'll mark the book with the situation, and it's under protest.

And the subsequent storyline showed the dude knew what protesting WAS, because he came out and said that's what he wanted to do.  It was flat out late.  We don't go back three pitches later and say "oh yeah, that guy missed the plate;  he's out, and take the run off the board."  So we don't go back and say the same about a protest.

I'm not dismissing his case because he's an ass;  that's just a happy side benefit of the process - big fan of karma.  And despite the glibness of that, I'm really not on #TeamDenyTheProtest because dude's a dick.  A protest situation is a rule thing, and we're supposed to follow rules.

Quote

Remember one simple fact...no matter how douch-y the coach is, no matter how despicable a human being he is, at the end of the day he was right about the rule, the umpires were not.  Dismiss him as a mindless bully at your peril.   He has a case.   He's doing everything the wrong way, but he has a cause to hang his hat on.  The call was wrong...the time limit is an arbitrary technicality.  And some people are like a dog on a bone in these scenarios.   He doesn't have to believe he is right...he IS right.   Being told "yeah, you're right, but you were too late...if you had said something 90 seconds earlier you would have won the protest" is not going to get a positive reaction.   His response is almost certainly going to be..."wait a minute, I did protest right after the play."

.... and with what I wrote above, and the first sentence of THIS paragraph, you're absolutely correct.  The umpires F*#Ked up the rule, and that's bad.  I'd like to think I wouldn't have done that.  But do we compound the F*#K up by F*#King up the protest process?  THAT part of The Tale seems even more terrible than a on-field rule problem - it's the shadowy bullSH*# that seems to make up local youth sports leagues.

And worrying about a positive reaction?  It MIGHT be because it's been basically 100 degrees every day since the first of May here in South Texas, but I *so* don't care about that part.  It's not that he said something 90 seconds too late - it's that he let several more pitches and potential chances for ball-in-play to go by before saying anything about a protest.  (And again, he KNEW enough to say it was a protest, so he knew enough.)  How many plays would be enough, if this is considered okay to allow it at that point?

 

And look:  since the game was re-done, and the other team won, one could make the case that, ULTIMATELY, justice was served.  But one can CERTAINLY make the case that no one was covered in glory by the process.

[The Man in Blue]

^^^^

 

[beerguy55]

On 6/17/2022 at 5:35 PM, JonnyCat said:

4.19(e), the protest must be submitted by the manager first to the umpire, then in writing to the league president within 24 hours.

And there's my point..."submitted"...wtf does that mean? Is there a secret code word he has to use?    What is the coach required to do/say, exactly, to submit a protest to the umpire?  What language crosses the threshold, which doesn't?

With this rule that can be very broadly interpreted, a protest committee could determine that "wait a minute...we made a mistake in our ruling...the coach DID protest in time...in his initial discussion with the umpires, immediately after the call was made, he was submitting a protest - for whatever reason the umpire did not hear or understand that...the coach thought he did".   Mainly because there's no hard and fast rule to what constitutes "submitting a protest" to the umpire...as opposed to the "in writing with 24 hours", which I'm assuming was definitely done.

I want to be clear here - I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying.  The likelihood is someone (at least) on the protest committee was pressured into overturning their own call.  Maybe the initial committee had voted 3-2 against the protest.  I agree - something isn't right.  Probably.    But there is an out here to make a bullSH*# ruling.   And there should be an investigation to how/why this ruling got overturned.

My point all along is, it's a mistake to dismiss/ignore the coach in this situation, and assume he'd accept the "sorry, you protested 90 seconds too late".  As right as the ruling is, to think he's not going to fight further, and frankly, to blame him for fighting further, for a perceived injustice, is short-sighted.   He's at the very least going to try to find out if there's an appeal process for the protest committee.   I don't blame him for trying to do everything he can to get the right call.  There's a right and wrong way to do it for sure, but I do no begrudge the coach for doing what he could.  Especially if he's realizing that he's the one who screwed up his team's chances for winning.

In fact, with all the focus on him missing the deadline to inform the umpire, by two pitches, they simply invited him to come up with a way to prove that he did protest in time.   "Wait a minute...I said this, this, that and this to the umpire immediately after the call...you mean none of that constitutes a protest?"

10 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

No, I'm really not hung up on the technicality of it.  I'm hung up on the fact that he didn't protest at the time at which it's relevant.

And, that is a textbook definition of a "technicality". 

10 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

t's not that he said something 90 seconds too late - it's that he let several more pitches and potential chances for ball-in-play to go by before saying anything about a protest.  (And again, he KNEW enough to say it was a protest, so he knew enough.)  How many plays would be enough, if this is considered okay to allow it at that point?

That would depend...we don't know the full nature of the ruling.  I would agree 100% that if they still ruled his protest was valid, even though everyone acknowledged he did it two pitches too late, that would be wrong.   But...what if they determined that he actually did protest in time...he just didn't use the word "protest".   I think the focus on this "technicality" just invites someone with tenacity to come up with a way of "proving" he did protest in time.   Can't avoid the technicality?  Then change the narrative to fit it.

I'd like to know if they really nailed the coach down, on the first argument, on when he believed he submitted the protest.

I'm not completely ignorant here - I am/was a coach first...but I've also been a TD and a league president, and I've been on a few protest committees.  I know what goes on behind the scenes.

 

Personal interest: I learned the hard way, very early in my coaching tenure, about knowing the protest rules.  I don't blame a coach who will do everything he can to undo a mistake he made that cost his kids their game.  In my case, the ump screwed up a basic rule and took runs off the board for my team (b/r made third out at second base - he figured since b/r made third out no runs can score).  I screwed up bigger by not understanding my protest options, and didn't realize until a few days later, when I complained to the league and umpire association, when it was far too late to do anything.  tbh - my complaint was submitted because this umpire was actually training other umpires, not to reverse the call.  Anyway, I had to own it, and learn from it.  But don't underestimate what I'd do to be able to undo that mistake and give those kids their gold medal.

 

[Vegas_Ump]

In Little League, a protest on an interpretation of a rule must be done before any pitch our play proceeds. After that, it's moot.  (Blown call or not.)

If a protest is intended to be lodged over an ineligible player (usually a pitcher), it can be done any time but must be done before the umpires leave the field.

After the game is over, it is what it is.  You cannot protest anything.

Mike

Las Vegas

 

[beerguy55]

22 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

In Little League, a protest on an interpretation of a rule must be done before any pitch our play proceeds. After that, it's moot.  (Blown call or not.)

If a protest is intended to be lodged over an ineligible player (usually a pitcher), it can be done any time but must be done before the umpires leave the field.

After the game is over, it is what it is.  You cannot protest anything.

Mike

Las Vegas

 

Again...what makes a protest a protest?

What does a coach have to do or say, to the umpire, to convey that they are protesting a rule?   And what does the umpire have to do or say to the coach to acknowledge it?  Does a coach need to ask for a receipt?   Does a coach have to say the word "protest"?   Is there any other behavior, action or language that would make it apparent that he's protesting?

What mechanisms are in place to avoid a coach believing he has submitted a protest and an umpire believing he did not?

I understand they have to submit something in writing to the league within 24 hours as a second step.  Not much different than any leagues I've been involved with.   I'm asking about that initial interaction with the umpire.   Completely understand the timing.  What is unclear is how to resolve a dispute to whether or not the coach actually submitted a protest.

I've dealt with protests before, but have never had to deal with a dispute about the timing, or existence, of a protest.

 

I'll give you an example of the hypothetical I have in my mind...

In the third inning, coach and umpire discuss/argue a rule in the 3rd inning.  It's very clear the coach believes the umpire is wrong about the rule (not to mention unhappy about the two runs the other team is getting). The umpire sticks with the ruling and the game continues. 

At the end of the game, the coach's team has lost by one run, he simply says to the umpire "Just letting you know I'll be going forward with the protest - I'll send it in writing tonight"...

Umpire says "you're too late, you have to submit the protest before the next play". 

Coach says "I have to send an email to the league before the next play?"

Umpires says "No, that is 24 hours...but you have to tell me you're protesting before the next play - you never did that, so there's no protest"

Coach says "what are you talking about?  I did do that...what do you think I was doing when we were arguing?" 

Umpire..."well, I didn't hear you say 'protest'".

 

Conversely - I wouldn't mind seeing umpires trained to shut this argument down at the initial point of discussion, and at the same time force the hand of the coach.  There's no reason to argue this.    Either pull out the rule book right then and there, or shut the conversation down.   "Coach, that's my ruling.  If you think I'm wrong, would you like to protest?  Otherwise, let's play."

[The Man in Blue]

 

No, arguing is not a protest.  Arguing is protesting, but it is not the formal protest that must be done on field so that the records (official scorebook and umpire's cards) are marked with the exact circumstances so that the game can be resumed at that point IF deemed appropriate.  

Acting like an A-double-two-hole in the moment does not serve as "I reserve the right to claim I was protesting if we end up losing." 

 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

 

No, arguing is not a protest.  Arguing is protesting, but it is not the formal protest that must be done on field so that the records (official scorebook and umpire's cards) are marked with the exact circumstances so that the game can be resumed at that point IF deemed appropriate.  

Acting like an A-double-two-hole in the moment does not serve as "I reserve the right to claim I was protesting if we end up losing." 

 

As I read this, the onus would be on the coach to make sure his protest is understood and acknowledged at that time, and ensure it's been properly documented by the umpire and the scorekeeper.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Again...what makes a protest a protest?

 

The word "protest" or "protesting"

[JonnyCat]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Again...what makes a protest a protest?

What does a coach have to do or say, to the umpire, to convey that they are protesting a rule?   And what does the umpire have to do or say to the coach to acknowledge it?  Does a coach need to ask for a receipt?   Does a coach have to say the word "protest"?   Is there any other behavior, action or language that would make it apparent that he's protesting?

Here's what I teach regarding protests at the LL level. There are 2 procedures for handling a protest in LL, one for regular season, and one for All Stars (aka LL International Tournament). These are basically the procedures that LL wants us to follow, in a nut shell.

For regular season: (assuming a multi umpire crew) If it is a one man, then you skip the crew consultation. 

1. If a conflict arises over an improper application of a playing rule, the coach will first talk to the umpire who made the call.

2. If the umpire feels confidant in his call, then it is up to the manager to protest the call. The umpire needs to get the exact reason what the manager is protesting. Once the calling umpire is verbally informed of the want to protest by the manager, the umpire then will consult with his partner(s), and discuss the call. After consultation, if the crew is still confident in the call, the calling umpire will inform the manager. (They could of course reverse the call, too.)

3. Now it is up to the manager to accept the decision, or continue with the protest. If the manager wants to continue with the protest, he must inform the umpire of his desire. They will now go to the scorekeeper, notify him of the protest. The scorekeeper will write down all of the specifics, such as reason for protest, the inning, out's, runners on, etc.

4. The game will resume as normal.

5. After the game, the protest will get forwarded to the president for consideration of by the protest committee as outlined in Rule 4.19. Sometimes after the game, the manager may not want to proceed with the protest. Regardless it is up to him to submit the protest in writing to the league president within 24 hours. As per rule 9.05(a), the umpire should submit a report for the incident to the president within 24 hours. This does not absolve the manager's requirement for submitting his protest in writing if he wants it to be heard. No managers report, no protest.

 

For All Stars: (assuming a multi umpire crew) If it is a one man, then you skip the crew consultation. 

1. If a conflict arises over an improper application of a playing rule, the coach will first talk to the umpire who made the call.

2. If the umpire feels confidant in his call, then it is up to the manager to verbally inform his desire to protest. The umpire needs to get the exact reason what the manager is protesting. The umpire then will consult with his partner(s), and discuss the call. After consultation, if the crew is still confident in the call, the calling umpire will inform the manager. (They could of course reverse the call, too.)

3. Now it is up to the manager to accept the decision, or continue with the protest. If the manager wants to continue the protest, he must verbally inform the crew chief of his desire.

4. The umpires will now clear the field of all players and put them in the dugouts.

5. The crew Chief and calling umpire will go to the Tournament Director or District Administrator and inform him of the protest. The TD or DA can uphold or reverse the decision. If the decision is upheld, the manager may elect to have the protest referred to the Regional Office. The DA calls the Regional Office and asks them to rule. The Regional Office can uphold or reverse. 

6. If the Regional Office upholds the decision, the manager may elect to have the protest referred to the Tournament Committee in Williamsport, PA. The TC will then uphold or reverse. The decision of the Tournament Committee is final.

7. The procedure is specified in protest section of the Tournament rules, page 180 of the 2021 LL rule book.

 

As you can see, yes there are specific protocols as to how to protest in the LL rule book. Yes, the manager must say it verbally, and at the appropriate time. Failure to do so nullifies the managers right to protest.

[Vegas_Ump]

How about, "I protest......etc."  Then the UIC asks "What rule has not been applied correctly?"  He does not have to cite chapter and verse, but he has to tell you something, like:  the defense incorrectly made an appeal.  NOT:  Well, then runner was safe at third.

The UIC then informs the official scorer that the game is played under protest.  Note the inning, situation, etc, so if a valid protest us upheld, they will know at which point to resume the game.

That's all you have to do.  The manager then informs the league.  And the umpires will have to file a report as well.

As I pointed out above, if an ensuing pitch or play takes place, and protest is moot!  Can't do it!

OK, are you telling me that none of the managers know how to protest a game properly?  Imagine that!  [I bet they all need help on rule 7.13 too!]

Mike

Las Vegas

[HokieUmp]

On 6/20/2022 at 9:19 AM, beerguy55 said:

And, that is a textbook definition of a "technicality".

It's really not.

That's like saying to me calling a pitch a ball is a technicality, because the pitcher was TRYING to throw strikes.  Well, sorry, he didn't, so it's a ball.

But we're talking past each other, or at cross-purposes, or some phrase like that, basically.  Put it this way:  if I thought in a sitch like this, if a coach were actually trying to get to a formal protest of the ruling, I'd like to think I'd either ASK him, or say something along the lines of "okay, it's put up or shut up time - you gonna protest this so we can move on, or are you going back to the dugout?"

Believe me, I'm not answering/responding to you in the way I am, just because I've got some dumbass policy where only the acceptable phrase is "Prithee, my dear umpire, I must protest the treatment of my team in such a manner!"  (I'm not saying I wouldn't pay good money to HEAR that said, but I'm not gonna make a guy do that!)  But - and to me, this is the distinction - I gotta get the sense that's what he's trying to GET to verbally .... to make an actual protest.

Too often, a dude's out there just arguing to hear the sound of his own voice, or get his way, or he's just dumber than a box of hammers.  And/or his "argument" consists mostly of "nuh-uh"s.  THAT is not getting the offer from me.

And yeah, in the OP, the rule was F*#Ked up.  But at least the written version of what happened after didn't sound like the opposing coach was going that way - just that he was losing his mind on the call.  He needs to know that part of the rulebook, then, so he can remedy his situation.  Complaining until you get tossed doesn't help anyone.