Hitting The Cutoff Man

I think most people who follow baseball are at least vaguely aware of the protest rule. Every once in a while, you'll be watching a game, and the announcer will say that one team is playing the game under protest.

Rule 4.19 of the MLB rule book states, in part: "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."

But it's rare that anything comes of it.

According to this article by MLB.com's Bryan Hoch -- written after the Yankees protested a game earlier this season -- the last successful protest in Major League Baseball occurred in 1986. The Cardinals protested a June loss to the Pirates in the sixth inning and it was upheld, although when the game was restarted from the sixth, St. Louis still lost.

Perhaps the most famous protested game took place in 1983 in a contest between the Royals and Yankees involving George Brett's bat that is now known simply as the "Pine Tar Incident."

Last night I actually witnessed a successful protest, although not in the big leagues.

I cover sports for a small newspaper in North Carolina and was out at a playoff game for the local American Legion team (American Legion ball is a 19-and-under summer league). The coach of the team filed a protest before the start of the seventh inning of a game his team trailed 6-4 and eventually lost 8-4.

This morning, we got word he had won the protest, meaning the game will be restarted going into the top of the seventh and finished before the next game begins.

Although the whole game was filled with bizarre moments -- the local team's starting pitcher left after two innings when the umpire said he would be ejected if he didn't -- the protest stemmed from a lineup change. After his starting catcher was ejected, the coach moved his center fielder to catcher, his left fielder to center, his second baseman to left and his designated hitter to second. The pitcher, who hadn't been batting, would go into the ejected catcher's spot in the lineup.

The umpires would not allow the maneuver, saying it violated the rules. But it didn't.

Rule 6.10 says, "The Designated Hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order."

(Of course, you wouldn't see this come into play in the majors. But theoretically, the Twins (for example) could in the middle of a game, put DH Jim Thome at first base for Justin Morneau, keep Thome in his slot in the order, and put the pitcher in Morneau's slot.)

So tonight I will be watching 1 1/3 games. Just a reminder that anything can happen in baseball.

Follow Hitting The Cutoff Man on Twitter at HitTheCutoff